Brown bottles it (again)

Geert Wilders called Gordon Brown the most cowardly man in Europe today, after the UK government refused to let the Dutch MP and film-maker into the country for a screening at the House of Lords of his film, Fitna, about what Mr Wilders sees as the connection between certain verses in the Quran and the violence and terrorism of some Islamic extremists.
I have no interest in defending Mr Wilders' views, but I think it is a shame that the government of a country such as Britain, with its tradition of free speech and political freedom in general, should be intimidated by the prospect of controversy and divisive debate and afraid of the possibility of protests and demonstrations, to the point where it would rather try to suppress the debate altogether.
Not only that, but, by using the excuse that Mr Wilders presence would potentially incite racial hatred, the government are, presumably, saying that criticism of Islam is to be construed as an attack on those races amongst whom Islam is the predominant faith. And by taking this stance the government are, by implication, making it clear that certain races are to be accorded the privilege of freedom from having their religious traditions criticised.
This government failed in it's attempt (a year or two ago) to get its proposed legislation against incitement to religious hatred passed through parliament. In true New Labour style, however, it seems to be pressing on regardless with the enforcement of policies for which it has no democratic mandate.

Update: 10:49pm
Just watched a discussion of this issue on Question Time. I was genuinely shocked by the fact that most of the panel (the Labour minister Liam Byrne - okay, I suppose he had to back the decision - the Tory shadow minister Justine Greening and even the Sun columnist Kelvin MacKenzie) while all claiming to believe in freedom of speech, believed that the government were right to ban Geert Wilders from entering the UK because his views were "unhelpful" and "offensive". Liam Byrne even said that, while he believed in free speech, this film was too "divisive" at a time when the country should be "all pulling together".
The celebrity gardener (Monty Don) very hesitantly suggested that probably "censorship doesn't really work" but the only panel-member who seemed to have any grasp of what freedom of speech is for and why it is so important was Salma Yaqoob, the leader of the left-wing Respect Party and, ironically, an adherent of the very faith that the government, with this latest ban, are so keen not to offend. Perhaps she is more able than the other panellists to think clearly about this issue because, as a non-white non-Christian, she has not allowed herself to be so distracted by the requirements of political correctness.

Jonathan Porritt is a miserable, Malthusian misanthrope... (allegedly)

...pass it on.

This post was accidentally deleted. It was about an article in the Times by environmental campaigner Jonathan Porritt, to which I can no longer link as you have to pay.
While I am an admirer of the party that Porritt used to lead, I did not like his article, which claimed that there are far too many people in the world and advocated encouraging more women in the developing regions of the world to have abortions.

Misunderstanding?

This article is a sad indightment of the effects of university top up fees on social mobility and I certainly applaud the Scottish government's abolition of tuition fees. However, the report referred to in the article appears to be recommending that money raised from top-up fees levied on students at Universities in England (thanks in part to the votes of MPs from non-English constituencies) be shared with Universities in the other nations of the UK where students receive free higher education (unless I am completely misunderstanding it). This seems like an unfair and rather bodged way of correcting the imbalance in funding. Surely the fairest solution would be to abolish tuition fees in all parts of the UK and return to funding higher education from general taxation.

Alexis de Toqueville and the West Lothian Question

This evening on Radio 4's Analysis programme, former Labour MP Tam Dalyell stated that Scottish devolution has increased the momentum towards Scottish independence because of the fact that politicians of whatever hue, inevitably desire and seek more power for the institutions in which they find themselves serving. I think he is absolutely right and what he said reminds me of a quote I once read from Alexis de Toqueville which went something to the effect that revolutions always occur after a period when the situation of a given population (such as the French in the 1780s) has recently become relatively easier and freer than previously, rather than in response to a period of increased hardship and oppression. Scotland has had a taste of autonomy; it's only natural that it should want more.
Given the inevitability of further Scottish and Welsh freedom to govern themselves (eg. in the form of fiscal autonomy for Scotland or increased legislative powers for the Welsh Assembly) the unfairness of England continuing to be governed by the UK parliament will become increasingly stark and it seems likely that the call for some form of redress will become ever louder and more difficult for politicians to ignore.

It's the economy, stupid

I must be stupid because I just don't get it. Everyone from Chancellor Darling to Bank of England governor Mervyn King is saying that in order to 'kickstart' the economy and climb out of depression, we need to somehow get the banks to start lending more money.

Banks will always lend money when they think that by doing so they will make a profit (ie. that they will get their money back, with sufficient interest). The only time a bank is not willing to lend money is when it thinks that the loan will not be fully repaid and that the money will therefore have to be written off as 'bad debt'. So, if the government succeeds in pressuring banks into lending money when the banks are reluctant to do so, surely the result is likely to be an increase in bad debt. But isn't that exactly what got us into this mess in the first place - too much money being lent to people who proved unable to make the necessary repayments?

Clearly, I must be missing something.


1 comment:

Defend Council Tax Benefits said...

Its more simpler than that, Governments need to stop cutting back, employers need to employ people and cease increasing the price of their goods to allow people to buy goods that generates income for banks to lend money to people in employments and businesses and not suffer bad debt.

The government in not cutting back allows businesses that supply government and local authorities can continue to employ people that in turn become consumers, by keeping prices low and not making the mistake of putting up prices as well as manufacturing not putting up prices, the economy will recover.

The key here is manufacturing companies and retail need to stop putting up prices, this is what stifles recovery, greedy chains and retailers asking too much for products slows sales down.

iPhone is a good example, why pay £500 for something that is worth no where near that amount? If companies want more customers, they need to be asking realistic prices, sell more and they can make a profit and order more from the manufacturer. The manufacturers need to look at a longer term process of sales and R&D recovery, stop paying high dividends to share holders who should understand that just because they invest, they should not expect to get as high a return but expect a lesser more sustainable return on the investment.

Greed is one of the hidden factors, it is placed at the wrong end of the supply chain, if the consumers appetites are not wetter, then you have no consumption of goods, no sales means no production and no production is bad because investors and banks suffer, unemployment rises...

The full picture is a bit more complicated but the fact remains that the keys to regrowth lay with employers and manufacturing and government.

Posted by Defend Council Tax Benefits 3 July 2013 10:50

Cup Fever

On the BBC News this evening it was announced that both the Welsh and the English national anthems would be played before kick-off at tomorrow's FA Cup final between Cardiff City and Portsmouth. As far as I'm aware, there is no English national anthem. I presume the newsreader was referring to 'God Save the Queen', which is the British anthem and so should be equally applicable to both teams. I think this might be something to do with trying to boost the TV viewing figures by turning the match into a quasi-home-international.

Class sizes in England and Scotland, compare and contrast

Unfortunately, I accidentally deleted this post. It was about how the SNP government in Scotland were placing an upper limit on class sizes which was much lower than that of England. (If memory serves, the limit in Scotland was to be 23 while the upper limit in England had been increased to 35 - I don't recall whether that also applied to Wales or Northern Ireland.)
I went on to quote from a newspaper article (from The Times, I believe) about how the UK Department of Education believed that increasing class sizes was not a problem as long as a sufficient number of extra Classroom Assistants was provided.
I went on to argue that the real reason for the UK DoE's different approach to that of Scotland was money. I quoted from another newspaper (from The Scotsman, if memory serves) about how spending in Scotland was £6000 per child higher than in England (again, I don't know how this applied to Wales and N.Ireland) and to point out that providing extra Classroom Assistants was no substitute for reducing class sizes in terms of educational benefits as Classroom Assistants are not actually teachers.
The post was not, of course, intended as a criticism of the Scottish government, whose commitment to improving educational standards I strongly admire. It was intended as a criticism of the UK government for failing to show an equivalent level of commitment.