The Promise of Avalon

Promise of Avalon has moved

2009-04-27T11:41:00.002+01:00

Please note that this blog has now moved to here. If you have subscribed in any way to this blog, I am afraid that my computer knowledge does not extend to transferring your subscription. Please resubscribe through the new link if you would like.

The Civil Servants are the Professionals, not the Politicians

2009-03-30T15:40:00.004+01:00

Iain Dale gives a good explanation here as to why the expenses issue needs to be addressed now. But, who could possibly think otherwise? He is surely right that 'the overwhelming majority of MPs put the hours in and when Parliament isn't sitting, they are to be found doing constituency work," but, this is not really the main point.

The reason why greater swathes of the public appear to be less willing to give them any respect is because they increasingly see themselves as belonging to a 'profession', a tag which Iain also gives them. Technically this might be so, but conceptually politics in a democratic state is not a profession. This implies exclusivity and a requirement for expertise. Of course they need to be capable people, but what they really need is judgement and integrity, characteristics possessed by many ordinary people.

MPs are there to represent us, the people, who afford them the privilege of legislating and governing on our behalf. The professionals are the Civil Servants. They are the ones who implement policy, they are the ones expected to provide the professional expertise required in government. This separation of functions was once sacrosanct, but it has been grievously weakened by the professional pretensions of our MPs who are too busy seeking validation of their worth to govern properly.

It is this conceited, vain and misguided attitude that needs addressing. Do this and the other bits will follow.

The Real Culprits

2009-03-30T14:20:00.003+01:00

Politicians will always tend to do two things when faced with things going wrong: Firstly, they will plead innocence and pretend that there was nothing they could have done about it. And secondly, they will do all they can to create a narrative that pins the blame on others, preferably their own traditional enemies. This is why Gordon Brown is pathologically incapable of admitting any error. It is also why he continues to pretend that the Americans caused the problem, in cahoots with rabid free marketeers in this country, allied to the bankers.

It is, therefore, refreshing to read this briefing paper from the Adam Smith Institute, that attempts to look at the problem afresh. The real culprits are, it argues: 1. loose monetary policy; 2. hubristic social engineering in housing policy; 3. the failure of the Basel protocols on core capital; 4. banks that were 'too big to fail; and 5. the effects of oligopoly on auditors and ratings agencies.

PM lashed by Daniel Hannan MEP

2009-03-25T13:58:00.004Z

I've been away for a while, but this blast from Daniel Hannan MEP has cheered me up no end. If only the rest of his Party were so forthright, I could be entirely happy in supporting them. But as they are not, I am not. Thanks to Iain Dale for bringing this to our attention.

Final salary pensions on the way out?

2008-11-27T12:39:00.001Z

Although much has been going on recently, there has been little I wanted to comment on; until now. Whilst not a particularly interesting subject, it is one of great significance: pensions.

The Financial Times reports today that an incoming Conservative Government will phase out public sector final salary pension schemes. This is great news. Whilst the private sector have been ditching them as fast as Gordon Brown ditched his Golden Rules, the public sector has been sailing on as if nothing is wrong.

In short, the final salary schemes are an unsustainable burden on the British economy and hold future generations hostage to the greed of the present. The Treasury estimates the liability to the tax payer to be at £650bn. It cannot be right for our children and grandchildren to be forced to meet this liability in the future. A system more emblematic of modern profligacy, greed and conceit is hard to find.

money supply, balanced budgets, reduced debt and living within our means

2008-11-16T12:28:00.002Z

Suli Shah, on CentreRight, has an interesting plea to save the economy by bold action. As I mentioned in the comments, it has the right tone but I am not so sure about the policy suggestions. I think it fails to recognise that, as Charles Moore says, "everything is different now," and that we need to change the system rather than save it as it is. Here is why:

1. He wants to reduce "the base rate to zero." - This is an option, but it does not address the underlying problem of bad debt that remains in the system. Interest rates at zero might encourage more lending, but inevitably it will perpetuate the lending of money to people and companies that should not be borrowing - this is the problem not the solution; we need to purge the system of bad loans and that takes pain. I would even advocate a self regulating interest rate tempered only by a stable money supply; how do you know that zero is the right cost to put on money? You do not and neither does anyone else. A zero interest rate will also encourage more borrowing from idiot consumers who will merely get themselves into more debt storing up greater problems in the future. We need level heads and stout hearts, not knee-jerk panic and perpetuation of the underlying weaknesses of our system. It will hurt, but if you stick your hands in the fire, expect to get burnt.

2. He also wants to send every tax payer a tax refund cheque and to double the tax free allowance? - Fine, but who pays for it? If he wants to do this by funding it through compensating reductions in other government spending then great; we should be doing that anyway. But if it is funded through more borrowing then we merely perpetuate the problem of reckless levels of debt. Debt, used in the right way for capital investment is useful but the way we use it today to hide balance of payments deficits and let people have things they cannot afford is obscene.

3. He also argues that "Labour did not cause the largest global economic crisis in living memory." - Yes they did, but in concert with other governments (who took a lead from the UK and US) running loose monetary policies and ignoring errors in the banking system. This vicious cocktail of expanding money supply and rogue banking practices was catastrophic. The inflationary bubble it caused, most keenly observed in the property markets, burst all over us and it was Labour that was on the end of the pump. If the public doesn't understand this then they need telling again and again and again until they do. Anything else is to capitulate to the bludgeoning Labour narrative that shifts the blame onto anyone and anything other than itself.

4. Finally he talks of telling "the hard truths," and how we are "going to limit the damage and eventually recover." - Quite right, but what does this mean? The hard truth is that we have been living beyond our means and a recession is inevitable, even necessary if we are to get it through our thick heads that if we want something we must pay for it from real wealth, not the fictitious wealth we call debt. And we can only limit the damage by not doing stupid things like vastly increasing government debt and reckless lending.

He is absolutely right in that "we are fighting for the very survival of our economy as we know it," but I do not want to preserve this deluded, fantasy economy. Indeed, the events of the last year are the reality telling us that it cannot be saved; as Charles Moore said: "everything is different now." We do need to take action, but not to save the economy as it is, rather to change it. All we need is a stable money supply, balanced budget, reduced debt and the humility to live within our means, and everything else will take care of itself.

God save the Queen and preserve Britain from stupid people.

Pupil premiums in education will perpetuate educational failures

2008-10-28T12:08:00.002Z

Policy Exchange is all the rage in Westminster at the moment, "for mainlining eye catching new policies to the Conservative shadow cabinet", apparently. One of their latest proposals is the pupil premium where schools are rewarded with extra funding if they take pupils from poor backgrounds. This fits the current social narrative where the imperative of every government - that wishes to bask in the approving sunshine of the leftist-establishment - is to cancel out the advantages of a prosperous, stable and responsible home-life in the pursuit of equality. And allocating a disproportionate amount of money to those perceived as disadvantaged is the way to do it, apparently.

Of course, there are many pupils that have a poorer - culturally as well as financially - upbringing and so are less likely to do well at school. Indeed, how is a child meant to do homework properly if their home is a war zone of bile, profanity and neglect. But, the logic that takes this to mean that more money will solve their problems misses the point; more money at school will not affect their home life. The problem is that leftists see every social ailment as one of money. Give anyone more money and everything will be OK. No room for ethos, culture or morality.

One of the reasons for this premium is apparently to give schools an incentive to attract children from poorer backgrounds and thus prevent middle class enclaves and lower class ghettoes from developing. This makes perfect sense if you view the world through a prism of leftist thinking, but what it actually does is distort the way schools and parents interact to provide education for children. Ultimately it prevents the party with the greatest vested interest in good schools - parents - from influencing the education system for the better, thus making it harder for all schools to improve.

As harsh as this may sound, the real effect of this policy is to reward failure and penalise success. If we take failure to mean poverty and social neglect, and success to mean prosperity and social responsibility, then we have the opposite system we should be seeking.

Critics will undoubtedly denounce this viewpoint as anathema to civilised society , but the reality is that this view, in a Darwinian sense, promotes and strengthens that civilised society. If schools are penalised for educating pupils from wealthy households, these households learn a salutary lesson in the futility of responsibility and success - or the more likely lesson is that if they want their children educated well, they need to go private. Conversely, the lesson poorer households learn is that it does not matter what they do because the state will always compensate them.

The pupil premium is a false prophet in the pursuit of educational improvement. In the long run it will make all schools worse. The solution is to allow schools and parents to determine where children are taught in a constructively competitive environment where funding is solely determined by the number of pupils they teach, irrespective of how poor their home life is. To perpetuate the politicisation of education by leftist social ideologues is simply to perpetuate the failings already present in the state education system.

Morale is not just about welfare

2008-10-27T13:36:00.002Z

It is often difficult to work out exactly what a politician means when his words are parcelled up and inserted, piecemeal, into newspaper articles to make a specific and discrete point. John Hutton, as the new Defence Secretary, will no doubt come under scrutiny in the following weeks and months, but one thing in his favour is his interest in Military History. Of course, this does not make him infallible, but at least it means he has thought about military activities more than most of his recent predecessors.

The issue of an EU Army is an old one and certainly needs a great deal of scrutiny, but his words about morale reveal an important distinction that needs to be made on the nature of morale. It is becoming more and more common to believe that satisfying material needs in the form of healthcare, compensation, pay, welfare and other similar things is the route to high morale. In a sense they are right, but only partially.

Military thinking understand morale as being the product of the moral and physical components of fighting power. Taking the latter component, the physical, it is recognised that decent equipment, good pay, first class healthcare and more contribute to high morale. But, when people contrast poor welfare with high morale, they become confused. Surely if welfare is not as well provided for as possible then morale should be commensurably poor?

Not so, morale is also dependent on the moral component which is the bit that gets the man to fight in contrast to merely giving him the means to fight. Through excellent leadership, motivation and management, soldiers believe they can be successful on the battlefield. In turn this induces high morale. So when we contrast high morale with poor physical provision, we should understand that the British soldier, although reliant on the physical component, derives his determination to fight not just from his equipment but from his courage and motivation.

Business failures are not always bad, except when its recession

2008-10-26T13:05:00.002Z

Over the last couple of years we have come to believe that normal laws of economics no longer apply. We began to believe that boom and bust really had ended, that growing public and private debt was not a problem, that monetary expansion merely offered benign growth, and that property prices - and stock markets for that matter - only went up. It became a sort of disease and the most serious case was none other than Gordon Brown, our Chancellor of the Exchequer and now Prime Minister.

But, we succumbed to his contagion willingly because, like the siren, he played the enchanting music we wanted to hear. And that he could play the all powerful human architect fitted our anthropic experience. This role is one he always wanted, craved. If he could provide endless prosperity and perhaps end poverty, then his slightly unhinged lifelong ambition to be Prime Minister would be amply justified.

Another reality of economic and business life we forgot was the understanding that business failure is an essential and cleansing action of the market. Not only that, but it can be a good in itself. Without the failure of some businesses, resources cannot be freed up to be allocated where they can be better employed. It is this constant reallocation of resources that enables progress.

This can, of course, go too far. When the economy goes into recession, more and more businesses go bust and because of the nature of recession, resources are not reallocated elsewhere. And this is a major problem of the credit crunch. As banks cease giving loans to businesses they believe are less viable than others, the money is not lent out to others. This is the imperative of recapitalisation. The banks have lost money on bad loans so it is not there for them to finance other businesses.

Business failure, up to a point, is an essential precursor to advancement. It is how the market works, but when other, usually government induced, errors are made, these failures come too thick and fast. Exacerbating this reduction of economic activity is the accompanying contraction of banking investment in new and expanding companies. Under such conditions, the economy ceases to regenerate itself, rather contracting to fit a more pessimistic age. This is where we are today. We cannot reverse this trend, all we can do is not make it worse than it need be.

Brown should be careful of blaming the US too much

2008-10-25T10:56:00.003+01:00

Further to my last post on the economic situation, it appears that Gordon Brown really does believe his own rhetoric. "This is a global financial recession", he says on the BBC, "and we are fighting it every way we know how", he continues. "We know this is global", he reasserts. Gordon, please. You are the Prime Minister of a supposedly advanced democratic country and you insist on treating us like idiots. Why?

His contempt for us on this issue is only surpassed by his contempt for members of the Armed Forces. Do they risk their lives so people like him can have a free hand in vandalising our country? Does he ever give them his "undivided attention", and does he know that the Army is not only breaking its harmony guidelines for tour intervals of no less than 24 months, but is also undermanned by over 3,000 soldiers?

Still, that is another story, so back to Brownian economics. In the interview, he later demonstrated a classic Brownian technique: the answering of a question with a work-shopped response to a completely different question: you were a bit off the mark in claiming to have ended boom and bust were you not, Mr Brown?. The naive might have thought a comment on the nature of boom and bust was the logical next step, but, if so, they had clearly not seen Brown in action before.

So, Brown's default response was no surprise: "It's a global financial recession." Wasn't this exactly what he said earlier? And, what exactly does this have to do with boom and bust in Britain? To give him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose he could have been saying that the bust was not his fault, rather the fault of global forces no-one can control, but most commentators know that busts and recession can be internally or externally induced. They are still a bust and they still result in unemployment.

As if to emphasise the point, he went on to say that "everybody knows it started out of America, we are having to deal with the fall out." Do they? We do know that the US sub-prime toxicity has seeped across its border, only a fool would argue otherwise, but does Brown really expect us to believe we had no hand in it, too? I suppose we never gave out 125% mortgages, loans to people that were a credit risk (self certification mortgages). I suppose we did not expand the money supply, induce a lower than optimum interest rate, or fail to supervise our banking system so they did not become exposed to the American toxicity.

However, I suppose he is right in one respect: it is global now. And, in this, Brown seeks refuge, cowering amongst the rubble of US mistakes, unable to take any responsibility for his part. But, if he goes on blaming the Americans in such a blatant way he should not be surprised if a reckoning comes his way once the next President is installed in office. Given a show down, I know who my money is on.

Labour continue to rewrite history

2008-10-24T13:12:00.002+01:00

They keep pushing the line. Ram it home and eventually people believe them from fatigue alone. That is the way Labour do their business and they are doing it with a ruthlessness we have now become accustomed to.

Purnell uses the language of the politician trying to rewrite the narrative to alter the interpretation we all make. He says that " there was no way Britain couldn't be effected by these (credit crunch and rising oil prices) very significant international developments." Of course, in a sense he is right, but he fails to recognise that it was Britain as well as the USA who did so much to create the credit crunch in the first place. That the credit crunch, so fuelled in the USA and Britain, then contaminated the rest of the world was inevitable but it does not mean the crunch originated in the international system.

The credit crunch was fuelled by a growth in the money supply, government encouragement of bank lending to poor credit risks, and inadequate supervision of the financial system. All these came from the UK government as much as foreign governments. Just take a look at Banco Santander for a way to escape the credit crunch. Because of simple rules being followed it is now in a position to buy up many sick banks across the world.

Purnell also reminds us that "the UK is well prepared to deal with what is a global phenomenon." Global? It is now, but we fuelled the crunch as much as anyone else.

Governments have always spun their line but it is now becoming really quite annoying. As they convince the public that our problems belong to a broken global system, they avoid taking responsibility for the impact their own policies and actions have had, not only on the UK but the rest of the world. Still, what do we expect from this shower?

Even Brown the Magnificent cannot sort this mess out

2008-10-24T10:41:00.002+01:00

It seems that the philosophy of John Maynard Keynes has made a triumphant comeback, sweeping monetarist and any other economic thinking into the rubbish heap of contemporary conceit. Brown and Darling, it seems, want to 'pump-prime' the economy by engaging in grand projects that will kick the UK juggernaut back onto its tracks and demonstrate how indispensible Brown and his brand of leftism really are to the progress of not only the UK but the entire world.

A new world view, shaped by the man who presided over this mess, is a sobering thought, indeed. We should remember that part of the problem is that Brown has already engaged in a grotesque form of 'pump-priming', but because it took place in an already expanding economy, it merely fanned the flames. During his tenure in the Treasury, this 'firestarter' presided over the gradual expansion of the money supply (over 10%), the pouring of billions of borrowed pounds into the state sector, and massive expansions of private credit. The results, as Milton Friedman so clearly explained, are clear to see. This, combined with a structural bias in favour of land speculation, created the whirlwind we now find ourselves at the mercy of - which many argue is inevitably going to befall us again in another 20 or so years unless we make substantial changes.

But, for Government to always and forever inject economic activity via centrally planned projects is not the only option. The problems businesses now face are these: lack of money (cashflow and capital investment finance) and lack of demand because the public are now skint and unable to finance their credit profligacy; both resulting in bust businesses and unemployment. Therefore, the solution is to target these two things. Government projects create a demand but it is focussed too much on supply induced demand; the government will provide and we will consume like the grateful little minions we are.

The government has done much to preserve access to money, and we should be thankful that the banking system has been saved from complete collapse, but they have still not addressed the fundamental problem the banks have. This is the sea of overpriced assets (mostly housing) that have now lost value, leaving the liability the banks face far in excess of the current value of these assets. Is it any wonder they are reluctant to lend to each other in such a climate.

Demand, however, is far better induced by giving money back to people and businesses in the form of tax reductions - even if they are only temporary. Reduce employer NI contributions, we save jobs; reduce VAT, we save jobs and put more money in the hands of consumers; reduce income tax and we put money in the hands of consumers. There is, of course, the danger that consumers will merely save this extra money and so fail to induce economic activity by consumption, but we should remember what people do with money they do not spend: they save it, usually in banks. If they do this, they improve the capital base of the banks, who then have more money to lend out to struggling businesses.

We may be heading for a Keynes induced spending spree, and the jury is still out on whether we want to be piling on even more debt, but if we must then there are other ways to allocate that money than through government directed activity.

In fact, any utopian remedy is probably a fiction of political hubris. The reality is that after a drink fuelled party there is always a reckoning. We are facing this reckoning and we are going to have to deal with it. No magic wand and no Brownian solution.

4.73% undermanning of British Army Regulars

2008-10-19T14:50:00.002+01:00

Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA) report, as at 1 September 2008, that the British Army is 3,330 (3.27%) undermanned. Were it not for the drafting of 950 Reservists and 530 extra Ghurkhas, this shortfall would, in fact, be 4,810 (4.73%).

One ray of light in the Credit Crunch might well be a reverse of this trend. Tougher economic conditions have routinely eased recruiting difficulties, but it would be nice to think more people were prepared to risk a little for the benefits of living in this country. Then again, should we be surprised that people are not so keen to serve, considering the reckless assault successive governments have made on the patriotic nation?

Cash deposits in banks were always at risk

2008-10-10T20:18:00.002+01:00

As we hear how local authorities have got up to £1 billion stuck in Iceland, we are led to believe that we have a right to that money back. Not knowing the exact details, it is difficult to say whether depositors have a case against the Icelandic banks, but it appears that some people are slightly confused about the nature of cash deposits in retail banks.

Cash deposits are not an absolutely safe way to invest. What do we think the banks do with our deposits to earn enough to pay us interest? Yes, they lend it out and by definition that is a risky business. It just happens that under normal conditions, for every loan to a commercial enterprise that goes bad, there are plenty of other loans that earn enough interest to cover losses and a little interest for us. There is nothing in this financial transaction that says there is no risk whatsoever.

If the bank takes our deposits and loses it all on bad loans then that is surely the price we pay. If we wanted the cash deposits to be absolutely safe, a bank would have to hold 100% of deposits in the bank. Under such a system they would not be able to make loans, they would not be able to earn interest and they would not be able to pay us interest. In fact, we would have to pay them to hold and protect our money.

Cash deposits are a loan to a financial institution to enable it to carry out its business operations. Therefore, it is just a variation on other ways to raise cash for business: equity, bonds etc. They are risky. That's just the way it is. Mind you, this doesn't mean we shouldn't be angry about any losses we incur and fingering the right culprits.

The Left is winning the economic argument - we should all be worried

2008-10-10T12:04:00.002+01:00

Coffee House informs us that "Just three weeks ago, the Tories had a 17 point lead on economic competence (YouGov/Telegraph). After more news cycles dominated by the financial crisis this had narrowed to 3 per cent (ICM/Guardian) and in the marginal seats it's a 7 point lead (ICM/News of the World)."

This should worry people who still have a semblance of regard for this country and a modicum of economic nous. Why? Because it is evidence that the Left Wing, Fabian narrative that the markets are inherently evil is gaining traction. Is it any wonder that Gordon Brown is happy at the moment?

If the public continue to swallow his stupid rhetoric that he had nothing to do with the problem and it is all down to some fundamental flaw in market economics itself then he will be happy and take public approval as a mandate to further entrench his big state, redistributive plan for Britain.

Let's rehearse the causes of the credit crunch again: a housing boom financed by an expansion of the money supply induced by Left wing expansionary economic policy to make society 'fairer'. By stoking the housing market in the UK, Gordon Brown thought he could stave off a recession and provide the finance to get the poorer into home ownership. The result: people unable to pay back loans and the banks getting jittery.

P.S. Just seen this far more impressive explanation of why politicians and regulators are at fault, rather than the system itself.

Governments are more to blame than markets

2008-10-09T15:24:00.004+01:00

As the anti-market rhetoric gains in volume, we are reminded that there are people who cast a slightly more critical eye on the present financial crisis than others who prefer knee-jerk, prejudiced responses.

Indeed, we should not be surprised that the anti-market view is gaining traction when we recognise that many of our politicians have always been suspicious of freedom and free markets. What they prefer is the vague notion of 'fairness' that by definition seeks to limit the freedoms of some to remedy the perceived injustice done to others.

But whilst the financiers have, indeed, made some grave mistakes, we must look beyond the easy target represented by some greedy, City buffoon. If he was alive today, Milton Friedman would surely have recognised the credit crisis as being primarily, but not exclusively, governmental rather than of the market itself.

We are rightly concentrating on the current crisis of liquidity by trying to get the money flowing in the banking sector once again, but if we are to find a lasting solution we must surely identify the real causes: excessive government debt, excessive personal debt, expansion of the money supply and government responsibility for sub-prime lending induced by the false objective of 'fairness'.

Is it fair that these same poor people are now saddled with a house worth less than the debt they hold on that house? Is it fair that the government is still encouraging the poor to enter a falling housing market? No, of course it is not, but then if we elevate 'fairness' over freedom, we inevitably manipulate how people and markets behave. It caused the Great Depression and it has caused this Credit Crisis.

Should we still be giving India Financial Aid?

2008-10-03T23:56:00.003+01:00

So, let's get this straight, the United Kingdom, through DFID, gave £275,000,000 in Bilateral Aid to India in the financial year 2007/08. Yes, India, the country we are told is going to eclipse us economically pretty soon.

Why?

This is a country that spent £15 billion on defence in 2008 and is reported to be increasing expenditure to overtake the UK within 5 years.
This is a country with an Indian Space Research Organisation spending US$1 billion, of which US$312,500,000 is for "manned space missions".

Now, I have no problem with India spending money on these two things; indeed, I would encourage her to do so, especially as she is most definitely an ally and friend. But, why on earth do we spend £275,000,000 on Aid to a country with such budget priorities. It is almost grotesque.

The bizarre way Britain spends money today is difficult to explain. Is it Imperial guilt or an overwhelming sense of righteousness? In the big scheme of things, this might not seem like much money at all, and I am sure it is going on extremely good causes, but it only serves to corrupt the purpose of Aid - to help those that cannot help themselves.

Given the current economic crisis we face, the government should send our best wishes to India, suggest ways to improve bilateral involvement, and politely inform her that this Aid will no longer be forthcoming.

Milton Friedman - Free to Choose Videos

2008-10-03T10:49:00.005+01:00

In 1980, Milton Friedman made a series on the free market. He called it "Free to Choose". The links to all 10 Volumes (less Vol. 6 which does not seem to be available) are shown below. Whilst government remains essential for proper and effective leadership, vital when a people need to act collectively in defence and the upkeep of law and order, this series clarifies the limit we should put on the power of those governments, especially in the way they are permitted to impact on the free operation of markets.

Volume 1: Power of the Market
Volume 2: The Tyranny of Control
Volume 3: Anatomy of a Crisis
Volume 4: From Cradle to Grave
Volume 5: Created Equal
Volume 6: What is Wrong with our Schools (Not available)
Volume 7: Who Protects the Consumer
Volume 8: Who Protects the Worker
Volume 9: How to Cure Inflation
Volume 10: How to Stay Free

What are the viable options for Defence Policy?

2008-09-26T11:00:00.002+01:00

Menzies Campbell is right to say "there are no easy options for the future of British defence policy – but there is no choice but change", in the Guardian today, and he makes some interesting and pertinent observations of current defence policy. However, for a politician, he is a little too reluctant to suggest in which direction that change should head; we can all highlight weaknesses, but politicians need to be a bit bolder when it comes to proposals.

There is, indeed, an incoherence in a defence policy that, on the one hand, knowingly underfunds key areas like housing, injury compensation and manning levels (units routinely break the 24 month harmony guidelines between operational tours) whilst, on the other, presiding over a defence budget that will never allow significant improvement in these areas. The conclusion from this is clear: we must either reduce commitments and capability or increase spending. I have mentioned before how strange is our willingness to underwrite £100 billion for Northern Rock whilst not finding an extra £5-10 billion for defence. After all, no-one died over Northern Rock, did they?

We should, also, be well past the understanding that "fighting on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan is unsustainable and threatens to break the back of the army". We know this because of what we hear in the Select Committee on Defence about planning assumptions: "In December 2003 the Revised Scales of Effort required the capability to mount, without overstretch, one medium and two small operations (the medium and one small being peace support operations, the other small being an intervention operation) but with the ability also to reconfigure rapidly to two medium and one small (where one of the mediums is an intervention operation)."

With Afghanistan and Iraq, we are firmly in the two medium and one small if you include other commitments in Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Falklands and more. Although we are pulling back in Iraq, there are still (May 2008) 4,000 troops in theatre. If anyone is unsure, this is still at least a brigade deployment. With only 8 operational brigades, including 3 Cdo Bde, I fail to see how we can sustain even 2 brigade deployments and remain within harmony guidelines. The implication is clear: we are over committed and our planning assumptions are not matched by defence capability. With 6 month tours and a need to have 24 months away from operations between tours, we clearly require 10 brigades, not 8. And this does not take into account the small scale operation.

In this, Menzies Campbell is surely right to notice that "it is the nation's most valuable defence asset – the men and women of the armed forces – who bear the brunt of these failures" and it is "strategy" that needs to be sorted out. All this is true but we are where we are, as they say.

On present structuring, we can maintain one brigade and one small scale operation or a single short term large scale deployment for about 6 months, and that is all. Therefore, until the Armed Forces gets bigger, we should never, ever have agreed to increase commitment in Afghanistan whilst we were still in Iraq. that we did, is symptomatic of the weakness of our political masters who cannot bear to be seen weak in refusing to "punch above our weight"; surely one of the most conceited political slogan of recent times.

The four options he highlights are all, indeed, pertinent:

Carry on as we are. He is right to rule this out. Our current attitude and posture is unsustainable and has been since SDR first came into effect.
Increase defence spending to bring capability in line with SDR assumptions. This option is indeed valid and if our politicians want to keep us committed, and we have to assume that they do, we must have more money spent on defence, especially on increasing the number of formations and procuring more and better equipment (vehicles and helicopters). "Is the British tax payer ready to pay that much more?", he asks. Well, they have not kicked up too much of a fuss over Northern Rock so why not and who seriously doubts that some efficiencies and spending reductions cannot be made elsewhere?
Stop liberal interventionism. This is the other viable option but one that is not going to happen. We are committed to NATO and NATO has decided it wants to do liberal interventionism. I see no politician that has the courage to stand up and advocate a change to NATO policy. They should, but they will not (at least in the near future). There is, also, uncertainty as to what liberal interventionism means. Did Iraq and Afghanistan fall under this description? I don't think they ever did but whilst politicians want to intervene in far away lands then it is necessary to equip the Armed Forces properly.
Reconfigure the Armed Forces to fight the wars of today. This is as ill advised as option 1. He makes a valid point that attack submarines, aircraft carriers and combat aircraft add little to military effectiveness in Afghanistan, but is he forgetting the grand standing of Miliband and Cameron over Russia and Georgia? The only operation we should be scaled for is warfighting; all else cascades from this posture. We need kinetic energy to defeat the most potent threats and it is easier to scale down than up. Anyone who argues otherwise is either an idiot or someone who has no understanding of war. The whole point of a deterrent is that it deters by demonstrating a capability and willingness, albeit reluctant, to fight the worst kind of war You would not want to be caught out without an "insurance policy" on your home so why suggest that we don't need it for our country?

The conclusion we must draw is that there are only two serious options on the table and we must in truth blend the two. First, we must spend more on defence capability that enables us to fight the type of wars our politicians seem to want to fight, and, second, we must think hard about the commitments we make. Who seriously thinks the USA actually needed us in the Iraq war? No-one. Bush even told Blair he could do without him but he decided to commit our troops anyway - whilst standing in for striking firemen, it should be said.

Politicians, Menzies Campbell included, have to get serious about defence. It is not a Westminster game but a serious business of life and death. And it is the best this country has to offer that are doing the dyeing. If they must commit troops, then they have a moral and political duty to see that they are best equipped for the job.

So Menzies, you have written a thoughtful and perceptive article but what we want to hear is not an outline of the issues but your proposal for a way forward. That is what you are in Parliament for.

Help for Heroes Rugby Challenge Match was a triumph in more ways than one

2008-09-20T22:26:00.002+01:00

It is difficult to imagine that anyone who attended the Help for Heroes Rugby Challenge Match at Twickenham, today, could have left with anything other that a feeling of warm approval. Not only did the sun shine bright all day but the announcer reported that the event had raised a total of £1.1 million in aid of the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court. A fun day out and a sack load of cash for a superlative cause; what more could one want?

Although the 82,000 capacity ground was not sold out, there were over 52,000 people present, including The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall. For those that know the layout of Twickenham, the entire ground tier and three sides of the middle tier were full. The South end of the middle tier, behind the posts, was left empty along with all of the top tier. But, this did not detract from an otherwise perfect day where the Help for Heroes XV ran out 29-10 winners against the International XV.

In the stands, there was clearly a large military contingent, past and present, considering the number of shirts brandishing Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force emblems. This was, of course, to be expected, but there were also a large number of plain old rugby fans, itching to see some legends run out onto the pitch just one more time. Lawrence Dallaglio, Martin Johnson, Jason Robinson and Will Greenwood were all there for the H4H XV, and Scott Gibbs, Kenny Logan, Colin Charvis and Shane Byrne provided the celebrity names for the International XV. Jonah Lomu would have, also, caused a stir if he had been able to take to the field; he had picked up an injury in training. A sprinkling of military players and youthful professionals completed the line ups.

One thing that strikes you on entering the stadium is how immaculate it is. The newly completed stadium has everything in its place and the pitch surface is as manicured as a Test Cricket outfield. To see a fully fledged international would be an awesome experience, the stadium being full to the rafters and the atmosphere electric with competition and civilised tribalism.

This particular game, however, exemplified the power of voluntary acts of support and welfare. Some have wondered why such an event should be needed in the first place: surely rehabilitation is the sort of thing the defence budget should cover? But, the specific need for a new swimming and rehabilitation pool has enabled the general public and sports stars to do their bit, even in a comparatively small way.

We tend to talk of the military covenant in terms of healthcare, accommodation, bereavement welfare and injury compensation but for the nation to fully keep with its side of the bargain, it must transcend the physical and connect with the Armed Forces and their sacrifice on a moral and intellectual level. This emotive and thoughtful connection is as important to Servicemen as hard cash, often more so. And events like this, do just that.

Debate the Military Covenant at the Conservative Conference

2008-09-19T10:42:00.005+01:00

Frances Done CBE, Director General of the Royal British Legion,has taken the opportunity to publicise the importance of the Military Covenant on ConservativeHome ahead of the Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool next week. She plans to hold a fringe event to discuss the Military Covenant and how better to honour it. It should expand on the Legions own campaign to Honour the Covenant.

Any publicity for and discussion of the Military Covenant is most welcome as it serves as a useful reminder of its importance. But, in our criticism, we are in danger of making some false assumptions about the complaint over its perceived dishonouring.

Compensation, health care and bereavement support were key issues when I joined the Army in 1997 and remain key to this day. The issue is not that the Army and MOD were oblivious to their importance, and have only started to look at them recently. That is just not the case. The real issue is not whether any attention has been paid to these three things at all but whether or not the Army and MOD are paying them enough attention and dealing with them in the most appropriate way, today.

And here is the crux of the matter. The Army has been trying, after all it is the Army's people that are directly affected, but it has found it difficult. And this is significantly down to political leadership.

Money is also a factor and we know that the defence budget is under severe pressure from extended operational deployments above planning assumptions. If asked the question, any soldier would prefer adequate ammunition and weapons to an extra appointment with the Doctor. They are the ones that pay the opportunity costs and so their opinion is paramount.

But, with extra funding or better funding - some areas of the budget are indeed wasted and spent on inappropriate things - it is quite possible to do both. And this comes down to government. If they can commit £100billion to underwrite Northern Rock then why not a few extra billion to defence?

Therefore, it is worth remembering that it is not that these key aspects of the Military Covenant are being totally ignored but that they can simply be improved with a little bit of will, a little bit of empathy and understanding from politicians and, of course, a little bit more money.

Another danger is this: although material benefits like health care, compensation and lawyers for bereavement are important, we are in danger of seeing the military covenant, too much as a physical thing. The relationship between a soldier and the nation should not just be a crude, monetary contract but a deeply moral and intellectual compact that expresses citizenship, selflessness and sacrifice for a common good - the common good of the nation. We must not forget that.

Final Salary Pensions are a dead weight around the necks of business

2008-09-18T19:14:00.001+01:00

If you needed any more persuading that Final Salary Pension Schemes (Defined Benefit) were a ludicrous invention then read this. How can it make sense for a company to waste time managing a pension fund when it is trying to run a business at the same time; it is nothing but a distraction. And how can it make sense for a company to commit to making payments to employees who have long stopped working. These pensions are dead weights around a company's neck.

But, until the government takes the lead and scraps all Final Salary Pensions in the public sector and moves to a Defined Contribution system, then major companies will continue to find it difficult to get the change past a reluctant public. Still, as more and more companies go to the Contribution system, the competitive edge of the UK will improve.

Trading on the Russian Stock Market has been suspended

2008-09-17T14:38:00.002+01:00

It would appear that Russia, attempting to ignore international forces and forge her own way in the world, has been given a shock she cannot, and indeed, has not been able to ignore.

Down 60% since its May peak, the trading on the Russian Stock Market has been suspended. To put this slump in perspective, the FTSE has fallen by about 16% since its peak and we think that is bad. Crickey!

It would appear that Russia is suffering from the Global fallout we are all suffering from but what has made things far worse is the pull out of global investment since the conflict with Georgia. With global finance in a delicate state all around the world, it seems that potential Russian aggression has been a risk too far for fickle investors.

Perhaps those that say a globalised world is a safer world have a point. Even Russian Presidents are more likely to check their behaviour when faced with financial meltdown. But then, we don't know what Medvedev or Putin will do next. Watch with interest.

Is Islamism more dangerous abroad than at home?

2008-09-14T12:31:00.006+01:00

Kevin Myers writes a typically excellent article in the Irish Independent and it is well worth a read from start to finish. In fact, the entire portfolio is worth a read. The robust style he adopts is refreshing for obvious reasons but it is his willingness to enter debates that most others are too afraid to enter that makes his stand out.

In this one he concentrates on staying the course in Afghanistan. Whilst we can certainly do a lot of damage to Islamism there, it is worrying how the preoccupation with operating in Afghanistan, treating it as the 'good war', can tend to divert us from what is happening at home. There is more, much more, to the fight against Islamism than just its conduct in Afghanistan.

First and foremost there is the acceptance that we are in a deadly serious struggle against Islamism, both for our lives and more importantly for our culture. We in the West, generally, do not accept this point, preferring to think that Islamism will stop causing trouble when we evacuate 'their' lands. Apart from the dispute historians might have over what constitutes their lands, this seems like wishful thinking for the simple reason that the Caliphate is not constrained by geography; the world is Allah's and his people are on the march, just as they have been throughout history.

Second, if we accept that they will not stop if we leave Afghanistan then we must ask the question: can we defeat, or significantly inhibit Islamism across the globe by fighting it in Afghanistan? It would seem that the answer to this is no to the first but yes to the second. However, to inhibit them is not to defeat them. Afghanistan is merely the focal point of their anger and rage, as was Iraq a few years ago and parts of the Balkans before that. If Afghanistan was eradicated from existence, the more violent elements would just reappear elsewhere.

Third, If we accept that Afghanistan is not fundamental to the fight against Islamism, we must look elsewhere for solutions. We in the West are preoccupied with the terrorist dimension to the Jihad, seemingly ignorant of the peaceful, cultural, political and colonial jihad going on around us. If a particular Imam does not have a bomb strapped to his body, it is assumed he belongs to the moderate cohort of Islam. But, his preaching and aspiration for Sharia to unify the secular and religious dimensions is just as destructive, if not more so. There used to be an offense called subversion; where did that one go?

Fourth, if we accept that peaceful Jihad is undermining our societies just as much as violent Jihad, we are left with the conclusion that the fight must take place at home and not abroad, or not just abroad. What is the point of defeating Islamism in someone else's country when it defeats us at home?

The point is that, whilst we can cause them attrition in Afghanistan and any other foreign land we choose to fight them in, we convince ourselves that the military operations abroad will defeat the entire threat. It will not. We must defeat them by understanding what they are doing in the peaceful, colonial Jihad as much as the violent one. Now what was that phrase? Ah yes, the Armalite and the ballot box. It is happening again. Only we should hope that our politicians do not kowtow to the method this time as they did before.

Preview of the Military Covenant Commission Report

2008-09-14T11:31:00.002+01:00

The Conservative Party's Military Covenant Commission, set up in March this year by David Cameron, is due to report at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham later on this month, but, the Sunday Times has reported that 22 recommendations are going to be made.

A more detailed analysis of the full recommendations will be made when officially released, but, some aspects are already known: an increase in pay; reform of the method for deciding pay levels where the Armed Forces Pay Review Body no longer decides rates in isolation, but, enters into a negotiation with the Armed Forces; changes to operational leave so only days in the UK are counted instead of days in transit; and increases in injury compensation.

Any recommendation to improve the conditions of service in the Armed Forces is to be welcomed, but, two points are worth noting. First, any recommendation, if implemented, must be funded with new money. We occasionally hear of a bright new initiative but all too often it ends up being funded from within the existing budget. The result is merely to spread the already thin jam, that little bit thinner.

Second, the debate has so far been largely restricted to the physical aspects of service life: more pay, better housing and health care, good schools and more compensation. These are all good things and are critical to the upkeep of the Military Covenant, but, it distracts us from the intellectual and moral dimensions.

For soldiers to maintain high morale and a sense of purpose, they must be convinced that what they are sent to do is just, vital for the interests of the country and appreciated by their fellow countrymen. They must also have a deep rooted belief that the real sacrifice is worth it and the very concept of service to the nation is worthy. And for that, the nation needs to be celebrated and protected by the gentle and loyal patriotism we once took for granted.

It is not good enough for politicians to talk about how proud they are of Service personnel, only to short change them in their conditions of service. Many of them do try but they fail to make the moral and intellectual connection between service to one's country and the integrity of that country. Ask any soldier and they will say they want recognition and better service conditions; who would not? But ask them again, in private, when they are willing to speak their mind and they will hint at the importance of the nation and patriotism to their reasons for serving.

The refusal to understand this connection is, in fact, the great neglect of successive governments and this is where the true strength of the Military Covenant between a nation and its Service personnel lies. Let's see if the other recommendations acknowledge this aspect of the Covenant.

School reform is important, so let's get it right

2008-09-13T15:52:00.002+01:00

It is pleasing to see that the Conservatives are grappling with the problems of structure and ethos in our education system but their plan for Swedish style independent schools funded by the state has some weaknesses. Here are a few comments:

Their plan to make these new schools, up to 3,000 in the first decade, independent is fundamental. It is the politicised and suffocating hand of the ministry and the town hall that prevents so many state schools from developing their own ethos and taking responsibility. But, why should we limit this to just new schools. All state schools should be transferred to this new independent model. That way, parents and teachers can take responsibility for the education of children, not political ideologues like Ed Balls.
However, their plan that parental choice will be achieved on a first come, first served basis is ludicrous. It seems that to get into a school of their choice, parents will have to sign their children up at birth. What on earth does this mean for parents with children of schooling age that have to move home. Presumably they have to make do with the worst school in the district. The whole point of parental choice is that it combines with teacher choice so a school community and ethos can be created through selection. Without selection, this is near impossible.
School competition for pupils with a 'premium' - presumably more funding - might seem progressive but it perpetuates the politicisation of education. Who decides which children are worth more funding? That's right, politicians. The game of moral superiority and demonstrable largess for a client group will continue. No child needs more money than another child to be educated. All they need is good teachers, text books and stationery, a classroom and a good school ethos. None of these things cost extra money.
That anyone can set up a school is a good thing but children should not be entirely cast out into the market. Schools still need a constitutional framework that takes account of parents, teachers, children and the local communities the school serves. Therefore, ownership can belong to anyone, but governance must belong to a triumvirate of teachers, parents and local governors. These three parties must have real, local power. In this, I agree that education must not be put solely in private hands but in the hands of those that matter.
The intention to reform planning regulations, to prevent council vested interests from blocking planning permission for new schools is a good one. But, local democracy must not be prevented from exercising its democratic rights to control planning. However, much of this can be circumvented by turning all existing schools into state independent schools. Councils should have no choice in this matter. It is for parents and teachers to decide where and how their children are educated.
Another point on choice. It is disingenuous to claim that parents will have unbridled choice. We must accept that there will be two parties involved in the choosing: parents and schools. We must leave it to the individual school to set its own selection criteria, within the law, of course.
Catchment areas should, indeed, be abolished. Leave it to the schools.

The fundamental point of education reform must be to put the power back in the hands of the parents and the professionals. Parents must be free to apply for any school. Schools must be free to select any pupil. That is the bottom line. In fact, this model is truly democratic, placing the power at the lowest level possible and in the hands of those directly affected by the institutions.

The Army does not tolerate true bullying

2008-09-13T13:14:00.003+01:00

If the Army wants the nation to uphold their part of the Military Covenant, it has a duty to behave in a way that commands respect from that nation. Therefore, it is a blow when stories of bullying appear in the news. That they seem to appear with the regularity of a social liberal showing indignation is all the more disappointing. But then, the two events are often linked.

It appears that the BBC have carried out a sting operation where a reporter posed as a recruit at the Infantry Training Centre in Catterick. I will not rehearse the scenario here, they seldom differ, but we all know the sort of thing that will feature in the film.

That the tag of bullying damages the Army's reputation is a given. No-one wants bullies in their organisation, least of all the Army that has gone to great lengths to address the problem. However, let's not confuse the issue.

The Army is a robust institution and conducts itself in a way the liberals and other laophobes would abhor.
The Army is preparing its recruits to kill and be killed in the service of their country. They need to be tough and if they get upset by a dig in the ribs then they do not have the robustness to fight and survive in war.
The Deepcut tragedy was caused primarily by political changes in defence training where soldiers were replaced by civilian contractors who ceased to take any responsibility after the training day had ceased. It was the absence of military personnel from this organisation, rather than their presence, that was the critical factor.
The Army goes to great lengths to curb unnecessary violence and inappropriate behaviour.
Soldiers are recruited from mainstream, working class Britain. It should be no surprise to us if they demonstrate some of the attitudes of their civilian countrymen.

True bullying is abhorrent to most military personnel and the overwhelming majority do not tolerate it in any form. But, when it does happen, as it happens in all walks of life, we should remind ourselves that they are an institution apart and are preparing for war. We stay at homes should be slower to judge and quicker to trust.

The effects of Pakistan's torn society is a lesson to us all

2008-09-11T13:31:00.005+01:00

Further to my previous post on the danger of creating a society divided along political and cultural lines, this inciteful piece in the New York Times by Dexter Filkins illustrates the tendency for conflict in such a society.

Pakistan is and always was crucial to Western efforts in Afghanistan because of its cultural affiliation with much of Afghanistan. In fact, the border areas, such as Waziristan, are little different from Afghanistan, with more similarities than with the remainder of the Pakistani state. For them to be separated from each other is like separating East and West Sussex, therefore, it should be no surprise to us that Taliban move between the two areas with ease.

The point, though, is that Pakistan is a torn country. It is torn between its tribal parts in the border, mountainous areas, and the lower lying, urban areas where a living more akin to Western city life can be found. On the one hand there is a virulent and brutal form of Islam and on the other there is a more moderate and secular form. The two are in direct conflict and this conflict spills over into violence, murder and civil war. This is the key battle facing Pakistan and we should take a sobering lesson from its causes.

Terrorism can be combated but a torn society is beyond hope

2008-09-11T11:14:00.002+01:00

We hear that prosecutors are considering a retrial of seven people for an alleged plot to blow up planes on their way to the USA with liquid bombs. Whatever happens over this, we are reminded of the horrors of 9/11 and 7/7: the violent manifestation of political and cultural difference between and within countries. This focus is understandable, considering these attacks have an immediacy in their destruction of life and material, but it serves to hide the silent confrontation going on under our noses.

The concern for many is not just the violence but the underlying change being brought to this country. We hear of mega-mosques, encroaching Sharia, Islamic faith schools that make convents look like dens on iniquity, and the division of cities along religious and racial lines which could well lead to the communalism Enoch Powell warned us against. Charges of racism are, of course, laid on anyone airing such concerns but in the blogosphere, people feel more able to write their mind, free from the opprobrium and hatred levelled at anyone who speaks publicly.

Why is cultural change as important as the violence, if not more so? Because it is the cultural and political difference that sets the conditions for conflict and violence. At the root of Islamic terrorism and separatism is political and cultural difference. British loyalty and peace is based on acceptance of territorial jurisdiction, manifested in the nation state, but Islam, through the Koran and Mohammad, is based on universality and the Caliphate that fights against local difference. In the extreme, Sharia will rule over us all as a law set in stone that cannot be moulded to suit local custom and tradition.

This makes for a strikingly different political experience that makes it difficult to reconcile the two. Until Islam embraces a separation of the temporal from the spiritual (the nearest example of this is in Turkey but it is still too early to tell if this is an experiment that will last) there will be an uncompromising source of friction that we could do with out. It is hard enough to maintain the peaceful and civilised society without having to try and balance such competing traditions and loyalties.

Violence and terrorism in isolation can be countered and its effects mitigated against but a society, once divided along political, cultural and religious lines, is a society that will be plagued by conflict and violence for centuries. Look only at the history books and the nature of conflict around the world today.

Roger Scruton in The Clarion Review

2008-09-10T10:09:00.002+01:00

For anyone that happens to stumble across these pages, this interview with Professor Roger Scruton in the Clarion Review is thoroughly recommended. It cannot be adequately summarised except to say that it demonstrates, as one expects from Scruton, a human interpretation of culture and society beyond the narrow confines of political dogma. Therefore, I leave it to you.

The problem with the EU does not stop with British membership

2008-09-09T14:31:00.003+01:00

It seems that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, speaking at the Global Vision & Daily Telegraph's conference on Britain's relationship with the EU, is suggesting that Britain should have some sort of opt out from future integration just so long as it accepts the status quo of today.

Whilst some would grasp this with both hands, others will remain unhappy because it is not what is likely to happen in the future that is the problem but what has already taken place. They would prefer to withdraw completely and perhaps join EFTA. That there will be others, mainly in the British 'elite', that would want no such opt out, preferring the lure of super politics at the EU top table, is a given, but they are surely swimming against the electoral tide.

Would it be a good idea to adopt the Emperor's proposal? Maybe, it would be better than continued integration, but the problem with the EU is not whether the UK is a full member of not, but the way it is developing as an anti-democratic, centralised, power bloc, increasingly defined by its opposition to other global blocs including Russia, China and perhaps even the US.

The EU's latest rhetoric against Russia over Georgia suggests that it prefers paper confrontation (it does not have the military might to stand up to perceived Russian aggression) rather than considered engagement. The last thing we want is a new 'iron curtain', dividing our continent, with Western and Central Europe on one side and the Russian bloc on the other. Failure to engage with Russia has left them outside the European fold, of which they are a rightful member.

Therefore, the deeper EU member states integrate under a single political identity, the harder it will be to reconcile with Russia. What we need is a looser union based more on culture, academe, dialogue and trade, that creates an open, outward looking continent rather than the inward and defensive bloc it has become.

A British slow lane might be an improvement for us, but with the EU going on as before, intent on recreating the European empire, engagement with the rest of the world, especially Russia, will be increasingly difficult, leading to a world that is more not less dangerous.

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

2008-09-08T15:24:00.003+01:00

Founded in 2001, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation includes: Russia, China, Kazakstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as full members and Iran, Pakistan, India, Mongolia and the Belarus as observer countries. Set up as a balancing organisation to NATO and the EU, it appears that the rest of the world has its own concerns, priorities and plans.

Perhaps it is already too late for us to woo Russia into the European fold. This is a crying shame because, despite troubled European history, Russia is our natural ally. It might also serve as a reminder that our delusions of importance are just that, delusions.

4 out of 5 want lower immigration

2008-09-08T14:21:00.005+01:00

In a recent YouGov poll it was found that supporters of all three major parties wanted immigration to be reduced, not controlled or better managed but reduced. Labour voted 81% in favour of reductions, Liberal Democrats voted 83% and Conservatives 89%. We need not ask what the BNP figures would have been had they been included.

What does this tell us? If the poll is truly representative of the supporters of all three parties then it means that for every 5 people in these groups, 4 of them want a reduction in immigration. Such majorities are the stuff of dreams for the average politician.

And we still hear the very same politicians and pressure groups spouting out the same, tired, but politically safe, claptrap that there is no immigration problem except that it is not managed well enough.

The immigration policies, or non-policies, we have been following since the 1950's and more recently since Labour came to power, damage the cohesion of the country and break up existing communities on the alter of supranational and human rights dogma. They make good and peaceful patriotism difficult to sustain, being substituted as it is by a combination of ambivalence, suspicion and hatred. Under such conditions, the concept of nation is unsustainable.

The EU must change and court Russia, not peripheral states

2008-09-08T12:38:00.005+01:00

The short conflict in Georgia, over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, has brought the plans of NATO and the EU to the fore, as we are presented with the political effects of expansion East. We should take this as a warning of what might be in store for us over the next decade, especially in Ukraine, a country with many similarities to Georgia: it has a sizeable Russian population; it is former Soviet state; and it lies within the Russian sphere of influence, no matter what people say.

But, it is the EU and NATO's jockeying for influence with Russia, over these former soviet territories, that is contributing to the friction. Many in the West want to accept Ukraine into the EU as soon as possible, thinking it will prevent Russian aggression and promote democracy in Europe, but, it appears that Russia has other ideas.

This new, or renewed, geopolitical struggle merely highlights the fundamental flaw in the EU: the union is far too deep and centralised which means that with every move to expand, the whole edifice becomes less stable. It is also confrontational in the way it is set up as a trading block, with those on the outside excluded from the trade terms that member states take for granted. So, rather than putting our heads down and pushing further East, hanging the consequences, we must start to look at the structure of the EU and determine whether it is right for the 21st Century and an expanded union.

The real focus of EU attention after the fall of the Berlin Wall should have been Russia itself, but we decided to focus on its satellites and encroach on her former territory. The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, is at pains to say that Ukraine and Georgia, as sovereign states, have nothing to do with Russia and can join Western institutions if they wish, but this simply ignores the geopolitical realities. Russia is the power of Eastern Europe and, so, Russia is the power we must court.

But, because of the centralised and deep nature of the EU, it is extremely difficult for it to expand to include Russia, for the simple fact that Russia would not want to join the EU as it stands, still being proud enough to want to be independent. Cultural Europe extends from the Atlantic to the Urals, comprising the nations shaped by Christianity whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Why limit its reach, antagonising Russia in the process.

For this to happen, however, the EU needs to change. It needs to forget its aspirations for statehood and revert to an area of cultural and economic partnership. Sovereignty and democracy is not protected by the EU, it is undermined and in its relentless expansion East and drive to more centralisation, it sets the conditions for a confrontation with Russia that is entirely unnecessary.

Tax cuts or a reduction in the national debt?

2008-09-07T16:44:00.003+01:00

Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, has apparently pledged to cut £20 billion from public spending. This sounds like a constructive pledge so far. We are then told that this reduction will be used to reduce the tax burden of middle earners.

This might seem hard to believe, from a party that only recently pledged to add 1p to income tax, but Clegg says it is "impeccably liberal" and emphasises that "the absolute core of Liberal Democrat belief is that government is too intrusive". Quite right but how does this reconcile with social liberalism?

This all sounds great but seeing as government still spends about £40 billion more than it takes in tax receipts, one might have thought that a bolder statement was required. National debt is a disgrace at approximately £600 billion. It undermines economic performance and it affects the value of the pound. We need a government that recognises this systemic weakness in Britain and pledges to pay it off. This is economically as well as morally desirable.

UKIP should revert to single issue politics and concentrate on the EU elections

2008-09-07T14:49:00.001+01:00

It is understandable that around political conference time, stories of plots and schism appear in the press, but this year it appears that UKIP really might have a serious problem of division. For those frustrated by continued submersion in the EU and yet to be convinced that the Conservative Party will do anything concrete about it, this division should be a concern.

UKIP may or may not be on the point of implosion but it is worth highlighting the fundamental flaw in the party's approach that makes it difficult for all EU sceptics to support them. This flaw is that rather than concentrating on the single issue of EU membership, the party is trying to imitate the other parties by having a view and policy on all issues.

This might appear sensible but, by becoming a multiple issue political party, they must come down somewhere on the political spectrum. Are they socialists or conservatives? Are they libertarians or statists? If they, for sake of argument, become a conservative party, only committed to leaving the EU, then how will Labour sceptics vote for them? They will be torn between the relative importance of the EU issue and all others.

There are people on the left, in the centre and on the right of politics that all want to leave the EU but have very different ideas as to what should happen then. These diverse views and attitudes can never be reconciled whilst UKIP involves itself beyond the single issue of EU membership.

Just a suggestion, but UKIP should revert to single issue politics and only concentrate on the EU elections. Like the SNP, it could gain a majority by not putting people off by their views on other issues, and concentrating on the objective all patriots and democrats can rally behind: withdrawal from the EU and a reattachment with our political inheritance.

What is the determining factor that shapes history?

2008-09-07T10:59:00.005+01:00

Niall Ferguson, Professor of History, gives an interesting insight into which forces shape history. He acknowledges greed and altruism as significant drivers of human activity but rounds the piece off by recognising the determining factor as: the stupidity of man. This can, of course, be reworded to 'the infallibility of man'. We have seen and heard it all before but that fallibility seems to necessitate the repetition of the message for every generation.

This will send a shiver down your spine

2008-09-06T22:35:00.002+01:00

Economic troubles point to a more significant malaise in the national psyche

2008-09-06T17:15:00.003+01:00

As we head into recession we begin to remember that economic performance is what it is all about. Surely James Carville's phrase, "The economy, stupid", coined during the 1992 Clinton Presidential campaign, is the single lesson any politician should learn. But it seems that every generation loses sight of this essential concern, as it convinces itself through hubris and conceit that it knows best.

When economic performance is good, a people gain a swagger and air of confidence that convinces them of the worth of their society, culture and nation. More than anything else, it can be argued that economic strength is a sign of national virility. It produces wealth which enables a nation to afford things that others cannot afford: strong defence, good health care, education and learning, technology and consumer products. When we have these things, modern man truly knows that God shines his light upon him.

But today, economic performance in Britain is on the edge of a precipice, if not already heading over the edge. Growth during the second quarter of 2008 was o.o%. We might think this OK because we were quite rich before this period but when inflation is running at above 4%, our economy is, in fact, shrinking.

The currency is falling, too. Yesterday, the pound closed at $1.76 when in July it was worth $2. Sterling is also down against the Euro. Exporters might like a currency devaluation as it tends to make their goods more competitive abroad, but, for an economy that is dependent on imports for much of its consumption, devaluation becomes inflation as these goods become more expensive. And in the price of oil, sold in dollars, our entire economy suffers as rising prices are exacerbated further by currency devaluation, not to forget the tax premium running at about 66% of the value of a tank.

What of inflation itself? The CPI sits at 4.4% with a target of 2% and the RPI sits at a higher 5%. True, this is not as high as some years in the past but any inflation eats away at our wealth. Savers are penalised and borrowers rewarded. Something wrong here. Unemployment is also rising, on top of the 5 million already being paid by the tax payer not to work, and house repossessions are also up and likely to rise further as people's finances continue to be squeezed.

The question should always be: why is this happening? If we can find the answer to this question then we are in a better position to avoid the same conditions in the future. This might be obvious but we always seem to end up in the same place, generation after generation.

International factors are, of course, a significant contributor. The credit crunch, doing more to affect the building trade and other business as the debt they previously relied on vanishes away, did originate in the sub-Prime disaster of the USA. But it was a British Bank, Northern Rock, that adopted an idiotic business model that left them almost entirely dependent on external credit for their liquidity.

Commodities are also rising due to the changing balance of economic power in the world. The price of oil is rising as demand outstrips supply, food is becoming more scarce as population grows faster than agriculture can accommodate. We are also heaping the pressure on by reallocating agricultural land to the production of bio-fuels. All this puts the squeeze on the UK and there is little we can do to directly effect things. Gordon Brown's attempt to get the oil producers to pump more oil was embarrassing.

But, despite the government's wish to concentrate on these external factors, domestic decisions are surely more significant, at least in determining how we deal with these external pressures. If we know the rains are heavy in winter, we build a strong roof, do we not?

Tax continues to rise as a proportion of GDP, the government continues to shrink the private sector to pay for a bloated public sector, even spending more than it gets in tax receipts. This government debt puts an extra burden on the wealth generating part of the economy and when joined by ever more regulation, mostly from the EU, the economy becomes clogged up and uncompetitive. And the only way to continue spending at existing levels is to sell the family silver. One day we will run out of things to flog to rich Russians or Arabs and we will find ourselves in real trouble, not even owning our own country.

To exacerbate things further, the money supply, M4, still grows at about 10% despite the supposed contraction of the money supply from the credit crunch. With growth rates significantly higher than this over the last decade, the currency has been debauched and inflation fuelled, only our measure did not account for real inflation. We are now seeing the fruits of this mad policy in the housing crash, falling exchange rates and continued inflation.

Both external and internal factors are, of course, important, but we should really be asking ourselves what has led us to make these decisions in the first place. It is, after all, people that decide these things. What sort of nation exposes itself to risks from abroad with no apparent care in the world? We are now hopelessly reliant on Russian gas and Middle Eastern Oil that there is little we can do to protect ourselves from their whim, as we are seeing in Georgia.

What sort of culture thinks it is morally right to live on other people's money, both at the national and personal level? Debt is obscene, epitomised by the mortgage orgy that led to many of our current problems and the public debt is not much better. This sort of indulgence, that says I want something now even if I cannot pay for it, is not only corrosive in itself but revealing as to the type of country we have become.

We can argue the toss over this for an eternity but at its root is a sense that we are a nation of individuals with no responsibility for anyone but ourselves. The state will look after our families, they will pay me not to work and the banks will give me money that is not mine. With this lack of responsibility comes a withering of nationhood. There is no us, only me. Therefore, there is no such thing as nation. And if there is no such thing as nation, we cannot act collectively, even if we wanted to.

We need a genuine resurgence of national purpose, underpinned by a moral philosophy that we can all buy into. How we do that is another matter, but as a start we can accept that patriotism must play its part. Patriots love their nation, therefore, they can love their neighbour. When we can do this we can begin to act as us, instead of just plain old me.

Let's get this straight - falling house prices are a good thing

2008-09-05T10:32:00.003+01:00

The Halifax House Price Index for August 2008 shows an annual reduction of 10.9%, bringing the average house price to £174,178. Whilst this might be unfortunate for those that bought properties at the top of the market, there are many more that only see falling house prices as a good thing.

So, why do many politicians and commentators emphasise the plight of the former rather than the latter and insist that falling house prices are generally bad news? If people buy an asset and it then goes down in value, who cares. We do not squeal quite so much for those who make losses on shares or other assets. It is not as if these people are completely denied housing. They are simply denied the use of that particular house. they can quite easily go and rent like many other people who could not afford to get on the roller coaster.

Falling house prices are, in fact, a good thing. In the months before the Credit Crunch began in August 2007, many of us were still lamenting the fact that so many were grossly priced out of the market, so, surely we wanted prices to come down. What is happening today is good news for the country. If only politicians would curb their tendency to meddle.

As the Westminster cretins come up with illiterate initiatives to bolster the market they once again believe that they can control the markets like some all powerful and benevolent God - blasphemers. It was only those intoxicated by the housing bubble - buyers, sellers, builders and estate agents - that thought eternal price rises were first, a good thing, and second, a sustainable thing.

And the politicians thought it represented real growth in the economy, ushered in by the New Labour economic paradigm of continual growth and an end to boom and bust. But we were simply on the boom phase of the cycle, only, they refused, in their Brownian conceit, to believe this.

Even Canute knew he could not hold back the tide when those around him exhorted him to do so. Falling house prices might be associated with a drastically reduced availability of mortgage credit, but all that is happening is that the market is correcting itself. When house prices return to a lower proportion of average income then when the credit crunch is over, more people will be able to buy a house. And this time they will be buying it with debt they are more likely to be able to pay back.

No, lower house prices are a good thing despite the casualties caught in the storm. bottom line is this: if you buy an asset, be prepared for it to go down in value as well as up. Let the buyer beware, as they say.

Arguing the toss over military R&R dates

2008-09-04T10:34:00.004+01:00

David Cameron's recent visit to the troops in Afghanistan has been used as an opportunity to make a policy commitment on mid-tour leave. This is a symbolic move that brings practical expression to the work begun in the Conservative Party's Military Covenant Commission, but what is actually being said and what are the implications?

Current practice is that during an operational tour, usually of six months, Service personnel receive 14 days leave which affords them an opportunity to return home. Understandably, this takes time and a number of days at the beginning and end of the leave period are taken up in travel, sometimes exacerbated by delayed schedules and other stop overs on their way home.

The Conservatives have proposed a change in the way this period is calculated so the 14 days of leave only begin when they arrive in the UK and end when they leave the UK. The implication is that the days lost at the beginning and end of the period in travel are to be made up in theatre.

This might seem like a good and well intentioned idea, and maybe it is, but it misses a few points. First, the 14 day leave period is not actually a period of 14 days home leave. It is a period of 14 days away from operational tasks, out of the firing line, to allow Service personnel to relax. They do not need to do this in the UK and, indeed, in previous operations in which the British Army has been involved, operational tour leave, or Rest & Recuperation as it is more accurately known, was often taken in the theatre itself and sometimes in neighbouring, friendly countries.

Second, the 14 day period is calculated by operational planners so they know when units and sub-units are available for operational tasking. The implication of the Conservative proposal is that leave is to be longer than 14 days, of a duration no-one quite knows. What is the implication for the planners? If, on day one, soldiers are stood down from duty and they begin their trip home, the clock has not actually started until they arrive in the UK. If delays occur, this might be 1, 2, 3 or more days before the 14 day period actually starts. This then puts a significant delay on the date they are back in theatre and ready for operations with the knock on effect that may have. What happens to the unit that is waiting for leave and delayed for a number of days until the returning unit arrives back, ready to take their place in the line? What happens if one unit only uses 2 days in travel and another ends up using 6 days in travel? That means that one unit has 4 extra days away from operations. Will there be friction?

Being of the British Armed Forces, units do not really care about this, but it is all in the definition of what that 14 days is for. Is it 14 days, mandatory in the UK, or 14 days away from operational tasking? With this initiative, the relationship on leave shifts from an operational decision and privilege to a political decision and right. These are two things of which the Armed Forces should be wary.

Perhaps leave will simply be reduced from 14 days to 10 days to allow for extra travel time. It might be that this is a good idea and one which the military endorses, but let us hope that it is ultimately a military decision and not a political one.

Falling exchange rates tell us that our economy is weak, not strong

2008-09-01T17:58:00.003+01:00

Apparently the Pound has devalued 8% against the US Dollar over the month of August. Some argue that this is a good in itself as our exports appear cheaper and therefore more competitive against foreign goods.

Whilst a devaluing exchange rate can indeed strengthen our balance of payments, we should remind ourselves that a devaluing exchange rate does not mean our economy is strong. Quite the reverse. Currencies devalue because the economy is weak and the devaluation is merely the recalibration of its worth by the rest of the world.

Well done Brown. Great work. And if our problems are the result of weaknesses in the US, why is our currency the one losing value and why is the US retaining a growth rate of about 3%?

Service personnel more likely to become criminals

2008-08-31T18:41:00.006+01:00

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. It appears that research carried out by the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO) has just revealed that more than 8,000 military veterans are locked up in British prisons for one reason or another. This equates to 1 in 11 of all prisoners. What should we make of these findings? Do they represent another example of the broken military covenant?

It is difficult to find figures for the proportion of the British population that are military veterans but it is around the 2-3% mark so that 9% of the prison population is ex-military is, indeed, a worrying statistic.

So, why is this happening?

Well, it doesn't take a genius to work it out. Soldiers, especially those that have served more recently are trained to be violent, albeit in a controlled military environment, and they experience great trauma and stress when on operations. This has two effects. First, they take this trauma home with them and as is often the case for anyone experiencing such trauma, they are more likely to be violent themselves. But, second, this violence alienates them from normal society as they prepare for and experience things normal people just cannot understand.

This alienation is experienced by all Service personnel to one degree or another and most deal with it easily enough. But for those that have experienced more stressful operations, this sense of alienation, separation from normal life, is compounded. Often, the only way to respond is by violence or the solace of drink and drugs. And with attitudes to alcohol still largely in line with much of Britain's overall attitude, British soldiers may well be more susceptible than our continental friends.

This response is similar to how many soldiers responded to their WW2 experiences, as they returned home only to find something missing that had been torn out during the war. Violence and petty criminality followed for a significant number.

But if we say this is another example of where the military covenant has broken down, what do we actually mean? Should we spend more money on proper rehabilitation after operations? Should we spend more on resettlement after Service personnel leave? Should we consider everyone for post-traumatic stress disorder treatment whether they display symptoms or not?

The answer to these questions is probably yes but there will always be those that argue there is something intrinsically rotten in the Armed Forces itself that is the root cause. After all, they have always had a violent, arrogant, abusive and bullying ethos and this is just the physical manifestation of that bad culture.

But this view is usually reserved for those who have never served or for those of weak character. The Services do have a robust and 'ready to do violence' culture but this is essential if they are to survive on the battlefield. Maybe, it is just one more price they have to pay in service. Maybe, there is no alternative.

Whilst Service personnel will always be at higher risk of trauma than the remainder of the population, more can be done to help. We can recognise the unique nature of military service and spend a little more. We can control commitments better so people are not bounced from one operation to another before they have had time to recover properly and we can probably do more to help them make the transition from military to civilian life when they finally leave.

But more than that, we can look a little deeper at the problem and ask ourselves not if the Services need to change but if the nation needs to change, at least to meet them half way. As an ex-Army officer I know how it feels to return to the civilian world after a long time in service and it is often dispiriting as we are presented with the reality of what modern Britain has become and how little the public and politicians actually know about Service life.

Soldiers serve a nation but they find it harder to recognise that nation, therefore, they ask themselves why they gave so much in service. Many will have seen friends and colleagues killed or severely injured in the service of their country and quite understandably ask the question: was it worth it? It's a question I often ask myself.

A thought on patriotism

2008-08-31T11:07:00.004+01:00

As we celebrate or cringe over recent Olympic successes, depending on whether we think collective action through the nation is a good thing or the source of all evil, we are reminded that the very notion of patriotism has had a difficult ride of late.

When the England rugby team won the World Cup in 2003 and the England cricket team won the Ashes in 2005 we were quite happy to express our collective joy at their success, but when soldiers come home from war we are reticent in showing such joy and thanks for their safe return.

In a way, Patriotism is out of fashion and only emerges on those safe occasions when we do well on the sporting field, but expressed in any other context and we are left with a sense that somehow we are doing wrong and should feel guilty rather than elated.

Many, against their better judgement, check their use and expression of the word, glancing around the room to see if they have offended anyone or become the object of ridicule. This moralising infringement of our freedom debilitates those it is inflicted upon.

The political and social left have done a pretty good job of transforming the word from a positive yet benign term of affection and regard for ones country to an altogether new meaning of aggression, xenophobia and general unpleasantness towards anyone who is not British. Such malicious idiocy has been a pervasive aspect of British society for many decades now and its destructive power is heart breaking.

An earlier onslaught against patriotism, understandable in many ways, came after the exaggerated appeals to patriotism, employed during the First World War, became discredited by the unspeakable carnage of the trenches. Then followed a brief rally during the Second World War, considerably aided by the pen of George Orwell and the optimistic ambition of creating a ‘fit land for heroes to live in’, before it began to sink yet again.

Why is it that we have to accept the critics as they colonise the language of benign and galvanising patriotism? I hope that sporting success can left this oppressive constraint on natural feeling but I do fear that if the political class, desperate to right the damage their political cohort has done to the notion of the patriotic and coherent nation, get their hands on it, the collective support surrounding sport will develop an aggressive and nasty tinge. That is not my sort of patriotism.

Russia has no excuse but we are not so innocent ourselves

2008-08-29T17:06:00.007+01:00

Philip Stephens takes a pretty robust position in his FT column against those that criticise the West in its dealings with Russia since the collapse of the USSR. But, for all the apposite comment, he takes the exact position designed to cause conflict and alienate Russia rather than bring her back into the international fold.

He says,

"We need to get this straight. Vladimir Putin’s Russia has invaded a neighbour, annexed territory and put in place a partial military occupation. It seeks to overthrow the president of Georgia and to overturn the global geopolitical
order."

Yes, of course, this is correct and it is deeply worrying, but he is wrong to say that highlighting Western culpability and double standards are to appease Putin.

He lambastes Russia for overturning the global geopolitical order but fails to mention that our invasion of a sovereign country, Iraq, in 2003 without UN authorisation did just as much damage to that order and the concept of national sovereignty. Whether it was the right thing to do or not, the invasion of Iraq did more to weaken the world paradigm than anything else in the last 17 years.

He also fails to recognise that over Kosovo, we failed to take note of Russia's opinion, a member of the G8 and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. If we want to accept the world order then we must surely work with these international institutions, not outside them in a unilateral fashion. Sure, Russia's unilateral action over Georgia and Abkhazia, is in my opinion far more inflammatory and aggressive, but it is following the same principles we followed over Kosovo.

As much as I dislike Russia's attitude today, I fail to see how we are so innocent. We are not, yet we continue to dress our foreign adventures up as necessary ventures in the interests of democracy, freedom, human rights and world stability.

We are truly entering a difficult stage of global politics and I would be the last to argue that we should blame ourselves for everything bad that happens in the world, but more importantly than that, we should recognise where we do make mistakes and try to engage other centres of power instead of excluding and antagonising them. That, Philip, is the art of diplomacy.

To be or not to be, Broken

2008-08-29T16:28:00.003+01:00

As Boris Johnson won the London Mayoral election in May of this year, I questioned here how the relationship between Cameron and Boris would work out. Some three months later it seems that nothing too contentious has happened except on the issue of whether Britain has a 'Broken Society' or not.

Cameron, apparently, is hitching his entire social policy on the assumption that Britain is, indeed, broken but Boris, in his Daily Telegraph Column recently, suggested that this notion was 'piffle'.

I'm glad the media boys are concentrating on such meaty issues but really, picking on this as a symbol of a Boris-Cameron split is pathetic. Who cares if all of Britain is broken or just a bit of it? There are sections of contemporary society that are a disgrace to this country and an indictment of present social policy.

So, stop quibbling over language and concentrate on how to put what is wrong, right.

Oh, and we still refer to Boris as Boris and Cameron as Cameron.

Empires are on the march again

2008-08-29T12:41:00.003+01:00

We have been led to believe that Empires are a thing of the past and national sovereignty had won the day. But I am not so sure.

With Russia reasserting itself within the boundaries of its old soviet empire, the new Roman Empire of the EU pushing in all directions, especially East, the USA consolidating its dirty footprint over the Middle East and China establishing strong links in Africa, we can only deduce that the balance of power is once again the holy grail of foreign policy.

The only difficult part in this new world order developing before our eyes is that, despite our involvement in the EU, Iraq and Afghanistan, we are not a major player in any of these empires. We have reverted to our bit part player profile of the Middle Ages and are left to battle over the scraps as the big boys scoff at the table.

My only wish is that we extract ourselves from all these empires and once again forge our own way in the world. Any chance of that or are we once again caught up in the continental struggle for empire? We had the Roman, the Carolingian, the Holy Roman, the Napoleonic, the Nazi and the Soviet empires. We suffered at the hands of all these attempts at continental dominance and I see no difference in the EU empire. As it pushes East can we guarantee that it will not take us into a hot, let alone cold, war with Russia? I really don't want to find out.

Definitions of race are confusing

2008-08-29T11:43:00.003+01:00

Why is it that a person with one white parent and one black parent is automatically classed as being black?

I cannot think of any high profile mixed race individual that is not classed as of the minority race or colour: Barack Obama, Kelly Holmes, Rio Ferdinand. This might seem like a mean point to make but all it does is entrench that difference based on race. Why not just call them British and be done with it? Their colour, surely, should have nothing to do with it and if it did, surely it is more accurate to call them mixed race. But then, in our world we have to avoid the race zealots. To call someone of mixed race, like Helen Grant, white would be deemed as a slight on her black heritage and to call her mixed-race is too direct. But, to call her black is to accord her special, moral status in our country that she could not receive if she was plain old bigoted white.

Just saying is all.

Helen Grant is reported in the Guardian as the Conservative candidate for Anne Widecombe's seat at the next general election and jolly well done to her. But it is also perplexing how someone can be Labour one year and Conservative the next. This suggests to me a person bending in the wind too much and lacking in even a basic knowledge of political philosophy. And for someone in their mid forties, one would have thought they had worked out the fundamental political differences between Labour and Conservative to know that they are like chalk and cheese: one is socialist, the other is economically liberal; one is statist, the other prefers individual freedom; one is supra-nationalist, the other is inter-nationalist; the list goes on. But then perhaps the conservative drift to the 'soft centre' has blurred the distinction? Well, at least she repented after a fairly short flirtation with the Left.

And, why are there women only short lists as this article suggests? It seems that Helen Grant would have got nominated anyway, so why give her the stigma of being a token black female that she will never be able to shake off. Madness.

How to make defence manning figures look good when they are bad.

2008-08-28T15:00:00.006+01:00

To read the latest Armed Forces manning figures released today by the MOD, we could be forgiven for thinking that there was no significant problem. After all, to be at 96.8% of their full time trained strength requirement doesn't seem too bad, does it?

But let's take a closer look at the figures, specifically for the Army, the Service that is bearing the brunt of operational exposure.

In July 2008, the Army had a manning requirement of 101,790 but only held 98,290 on trained strength. That is a deficit of 3,500, exactly (strange this is such a rounded figure, don't you think).

The Army is, therefore, at 96.6% of their full time trained strength requirement which suggests an even spread of pain across the Services. Again, this does not seem too bad but let's take a closer look:

A 96.6% manning rate does not seem half as bad as reporting a shortfall of 3,500 personnel. This is a simple way to present the same data in a way that does not appear so bad to the casual observer. But the really annoying bit is that it masks the true implication of undermanning and the resultant pain it causes units and personnel spread ever thinner across operational commitments.

The figure of 3,500 personnel equates to approximately five and a half infantry battalions unavailable to the orbat. At a time when units are deploying on operations at 1 year intervals instead of the planned for 2 years, this is significant indeed. And remember that only a couple of years ago, we axed 3 infantry battalions and re-tasked another for an SF support role because they were deemed unnecessary against defence assumptions.

The choice of emphasis of the press release is also telling in its attempt to hide the true situation. Read the passage on how numbers joining are on the increase and the numbers leaving are on the decrease and you would have thought that the recent improvements underline the general trend. We are being let to believe that there is no problem and things will be back to normal in just a while.

Not mentioned in the press release is the statistic that in only April 2005, we had a manning strength of 102,444 which is a clear 4,154 above the current strength. So where have these 4,154 gone in the last three years? This is a significant hemorrhage of manpower and one we should be worried about. This reduction equates to a reduction in strength of more than 100 personnel every month.

But are we to assume that the MOD intends to find the 3,500 in extra manpower to return to full manning? No. This shortfall is entirely consistent with previous shortfalls. Not more than a year before April 2005, the requirement was for about 108,000 trained soldiers and there was a deficit of about 3,500 then, just as there is now. This is to save money on wages and other manpower costs. We do not have full manning because we cannot afford full manning. So, when a minister speaks of a new welfare initiative, or operational allowance think where that money comes from. It comes from the existing budget and so is paid for by holding less people on the trained strength.

And finally, full manning is defined as 1% above the manning requirement or 2% below that requirement. As the Army is 3.4% below the requirement or 1.4% points below the fudge factor of 2%, we see that there is a problem. Will we get into the acceptable spread? I'm not too sure. I suspect that the requirement will simply be brought down again to make it appear that we are fully manned. And why is the strength, technically allowed to fall 2% below but only 1% above the requirement. Money, that is why. But when we routinely have about 10% of personnel unable to deploy for health and fitness reasons, perhaps we should define full manning as to be at least 10% above the requirement.

Cost that one, Darling.

Cameron in Georgia has constitutional implications

2008-08-23T11:48:00.003+01:00

It is an electoral axiom that a prospective Prime Minister, or even President, must cut a figure on the international stage. Barrack Obama, the Democratic nomination for the 2008 US presidential race, toured the world earlier this year to prove he was worthy of holding the President's office, so too is David Cameron flexing his diplomatic muscles to stake his own claim to the Prime Minster's office.

James Forsyth, in the Spectator this week, thinks we are witnessing "the final phase of preparing the country for Prime Minister Cameron". But as the Conservatives use the Georgia situation as an opportunity for "introducing the country to Statesman Cameron", we are presented with a constitutional problem, a significant problem that the MSM has so far failed to notice.

And the problem is this: what business is it of an opposition politician to unilaterally represent Britain's diplomatic position? As he uses the opportunity to "convey Britain's solidarity with Georgia", he, unconstitutionally, lays claim to ministerial rights. He is neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary nor even a minister of any sort. He is an opposition party leader and so has no legitimacy in conducting British foreign policy.

Before this point is dismissed, we and all those who take a patriotic view of the British nation, should recognise that we have a constitutional settlement that British foreign policy is conducted by democratically accountable and appointed ministers of state, Foreign Office officials and duly appointed representatives. It might be churlish to criticise Cameron on showing solidarity with Georgia, but what if he had an opposing view and thought that Russia was more worthy of British support? Sure, it is unlikely that politicians today would ignore the opportunity to find the simplistic bogeyman in all this but if he had gone to Russia, or even South Ossetia under the protection of Russia and stood up and said he wanted to show Britain's solidarity, the Foreign Office might have been a little miffed.

I have seen no evidence that Cameron went to Georgia as part of a synchronised diplomatic effort by the government, so, despite the fact that his position seems to chime with the official position, we should take note that he has taken it upon himself to send a diplomatic message, from an unconstitutional position, that he has no business making. He is not a private individual, he is not even the leader of an NGO that has its own legitimacy in getting involved in what happens in other countries. He is a leading politician in Britain and his words can quite easily be taken to represent the official British position to the conflict. How would he like it if David Miliband, as the leader of the Opposition in a few years time, decided to meddle in diplomatic relations where he took a contrary view to Prime Minister Cameron's own position? Quite.

Disclaimer: this post neither supports nor condemns Russia or Georgia, but queries the constitutional rights of a leader of the Opposition when it comes to foreign affairs.

Why don't we eradicate the national debt?

2008-08-22T18:29:00.004+01:00

The Conservative slogan to share the proceeds of economic growth seems more and more idiotic as we head further into recession. How exactly do we share the losses of recession? Looking at the track record, probably by more and more debt, but with between £500 billion and £1.3 trillion of national debt, depending on which measurement you use, one would have thought we had enough of that already.

In the pursuit of a new slogan, how about this one: "Eradicate the
national debt over the course of the next economic cycle".

I don't hold out much hope that the Conservatives will take this one up, but if they did, it would provide an additional reason to vote for them. As China and India steam ahead, it is clear that our indulgent economic model must change. As our currency continues to fall (as it will fall further when China is finally forced to appreciate their currency), the debt will turn from a barely manageable weight around our shoulders to a dead weight taking us to the bottom of the Atlantic.

Georgia shows the importance of culture to security

2008-08-22T16:44:00.001+01:00

The Georgian conflict with Russia - or is it the Russian conflict with Georgia, I am not sure - has not yet become the apocalyptic disaster many predicted but it will surely reverberate through the coming decades as it reminds us that history is still being made and the world is a lot more complex than we might like it to be.

After the collapse of the Warsaw Pact a decade and a half ago, we blithely believed that we in the West could determine, uninhibited, what went into the history books from then on, but we have since been reminded that the world has not become uni-polar but reverted to its pre-Cold War multi-polarity.

Samuel Huntingdon, famously spoke of the clash of civilisations, but rather than predicting an apocalyptic clash he was merely highlighting the power of culture and civilisation to determine the balance of global power and the alignment of general loyalties and ties. How can anyone that looks at history doubt that there are more subtle and deep rooted factors that determine what we do and how we see ourselves in the world than mere economics.

One might have thought that with the final collapse of economic Marxism, we would have recognised that money and wealth is not the only driver of history. The growth of Islamism over recent decades suggests that culture, especially religious culture, is just as, if not more so, significant as resources. And the resurgence of China in the world, determined to resist the Western ideology of liberty in favour of a more statist form of capital liberty, should also remind us that governments are still able to follow their own ideology in shaping their region and the world.

So, we are left with three broad influences on history: resources, ideology and culture.

I highlight these three things with respect to what is going on in Georgia to link in with an earlier post that suggested the nation was built on more than values (read ideology). The underlying reason for Russian involvement in Georgia is that the Ossetians, majority being of the Russian state do not see themselves as being part of the Georgian state and nation. Whilst they number about 70k in South Ossetia, there are about 500k in the rest of Russia. This clash between two groups that define themselves by their cultural difference should be a lesson to us all.

Where states incorporate different national groups, they tend towards conflict. We see this in the Former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iraq and also the Caucasus. It even explains the historical enmity found within Northern Ireland. If history is so convincing, why do we in the West ignore it so arrogantly? We try to build a rainbow world but all we do is sow the seeds of future conflict. It is, I am afraid, all a matter of time.

Why belittle the religious to advance the secular?

2008-08-21T14:59:00.006+01:00

Every so often, an article appears that sends a chill of foreboding through the body. Professor Grayling, a philosophy academic from the University of London has just written such an article on the merits of having an atheist Prime Minister.

Now, there is nothing wrong with wishing for an atheist Prime Minister and, as the gist of the article goes, there are good arguments for the full separation of church and state, especially within education and political representation.

The Labour campaign to establish New Britain has now fully brought about the disparate, plural society where we no longer share our culture and inheritance, so, to avoid communal conflict we can see that, maybe, it would be better to banish religion to the private sphere, completely. However, I do wonder where this logic takes us? If difference creates communal conflict, what should we do about all those other differences: color, political ideology, race, language and other customs?

Despite this, the problem with the article, is that it goes further, much further. In echoes of Dawkins’ God Delusion, or Dawkins Conceit as I would prefer to put it, the secular and the atheist is elevated, almost, to deified proportions, as if it alone can deliver us to the Promised Land. And, although heavily disguised with moderate and accommodating language, it portrays religion as some bigoted, infantile, slightly insane and even to be pitied idea.

In a list of things atheist leaders are, apparently, immune from, he goes on to explain why the alternative of a religious leader is nothing but a destiny with despair.

So, apparently, religious leaders get “messages from Beyond telling them to go to war” and they “cloak themselves in supernatural justifications”. Just because Blair had something of the Messianic about him, does not mean that all religious people do. In fact, my experience of most (although by no means all) religious people is that they are anything but slaves to that little voice of God in their heads but reliant on their own sense of morality that just happens to be informed by the Christian message of forgiveness, charity, discipline and love.

And just which religious groups claim “to be more important than other civil society organisations in doing good”? Of course, they are not but the implication of this statement is clearly to suggest they have a conceited sense of their own infallibility and superiority. The reality is far removed from this. Doubt and humility are characteristics I more associate with the religious – the Christian, certainly.

Religion has apparently “ghettoized” children and risks “social divisiveness and possible future conflict”. The first is a preposterous assertion but as mentioned earlier, the latter has more validity. But in a gross oversimplification, this argument peddles the Northern Irish problem as purely a religious problem. Any observer not prejudiced towards religion would have realised that the IRA were not fighting a war about religion but the very secular idea of a united political Ireland. It is sad that such lazy arguments come from a Professor. And does he not realise that the real growing conflict over religion is not between Catholic and Protestant Irish but secular Britons and Islamist immigrants. To banish Christianity from the public sphere in the face of Islamic advances is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

A further assertion is that “atheist leaders are more likely to take a literally down-to-earth view of the needs, interests and circumstances of people in the here and now, and will not be influenced by the belief that present sufferings and inequalities will be compensated in some posthumous dispensation.” If this is the case then how does he explain the vast charitable efforts of the Christian church to alleviate the problems of the here and now? And he himself mentions that the C of E is responsible for 80% of the Primary School system: fairly here and now if you ask me.

And most staggeringly of all, he argues that “Atheist leaders will not be tempted to think they are the messenger of any good news from above, or the agent of any higher purpose on earth.” Does he not recollect the names of Stalin and Hitler? These two uber-secularists and ardent atheists were responsible for the greatest acts of barbarity in the 20th Century, all in the name of their "higher purpose on earth: communism and fascism". Please remind me of the Christian leader that did what they did? Oh, that’s right, there are none.

Those that reject the religious dimension to life, also reject religious morality that, especially under its Protestant form, paved the way for those things the secular state holds so dear: human rights, equality under the law, strong institutions and plain old compassion and decency. The atheists and the philosophers that dismiss this connection out of hand fail to see that they undermine that which they advocate: the decent, law abiding society.

Professor Grayling is right to say that religion is “a matter of choice” and therefore something to be discussed, thought over and even modified as we develop as a society, but for all the good reasons to strengthen secular society, to indulge in a simplistic and, to be frank, illogical and inaccurate, assault on our religious experience does nothing but undermine his argument.

And finally, if he still thinks religion thinks of little else than how to subjugate the secular to their ways, take a note of Jesus when he said “render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's”. No, the Christian Church fully understands that the political and religious dimensions are different and in most ways separate, but to indulge in poor argument, especially from a Professor of Philosophy, is to do the damage he himself accuses religion of causing.

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves a better question: compare and contrast the relative effects on society of religion and political ideology, both good and bad.

Statecraft and the West's deficiency

2008-08-17T10:54:00.004+01:00

The partial war between Russia and Georgia over the separatist provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have exercised the pens of many a journalist and commentator, already, but it is the politicians that are required to navigate a steady and statesmanlike course through the rocky waters of Caucasus politics.

For all the words, full of indignant and naive argument, it is these from David Remnick in the New Yorker that are of most poignancy:

"To deal with him [Putin] will require statecraft of a kind that has proved well beyond the capacities of our current practitioners."

So far it seems that our public response has been a mixture of listlessness from Brown, worrying recklessness from Cameron and schoolboy assumption from the MSM.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, seems to be proving that he has no interest in foreign and defence affairs and little aptitude, perhaps because they both represent aspects of old Britain and require him to meet other people and get on with them.
David Cameron has taken it on himself to masquerade as an official representative of the United Kingdom. In visiting Georgia he has aligned the UK with their cause which he might agree with but is not the effective execution of statecraft we need. He is not a minister and he is not a diplomat. One gets the impression that he is only there in an attempt to appear statesmanlike, much like Obama did several weeks ago, and fit for for the office of Prime Minister. I suppose one can understand this but when it sends diplomatic messages he has no business sending, it risks inflaming the situation rather than easing it.
Commentators have all too easily fallen back on the old stereotype of the Russian Bear. Whilst Putin's Russia is certainly flexing its muscles in an undesirable way, we seem to have taken no account of Russian sensibilities as we push the EU and NATO eastwards.
MSM commentators also seem to have ignored the statecraft mistakes of the West: The recognition of the unilateral declaration of independence from Kosovo against the wishes of the sovereign state of Serbia whilst ignoring the same wishes of the South Ossetians; The relentless undermining of the doctrine of the sovereign nation state that, if extended to Russia, would see it dismantled against the wishes of the sovereign state of Russia. We might also ask ourselves of the implication of this action on the Basque Country, Wales, Scotland and even the growing nations of Bradford and Birmingham. If this seems far fetched then please note that the South Ossetians were migrants from North of the Caucasus mountains.
We lecture Russia on the use of force to achieve its ambitions but refuse to recognise this approach in what we do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is easy to criticise Russia and I am inclined to do the same as I do not want countries playing power politics with the force of arms, but if we want to contain their ambitions we must learn a little more humility and recognise the hypocrisy and insensitivity of much of our foreign policy today. We need statesmen, not Question Time ranters.

We have a choice between freedom and subservience

2008-08-10T14:16:00.002+01:00

The ongoing plight of the Labour government and Gordon Brown in particular is, indeed, a tragedy, of sorts. Having spent his entire student and adult life aspiring, planning and conspiring to acquire the position of Prime Minister, the extent of his trauma cannot be underestimated. Everyday he sees not only the polls but the man on the street telling him what he cannot comprehend: that the public do not want him and seem to like him even less. Even having Tony Blair back would be better. How can this have happened? He was so certain. He was so thorough in his preparation.

As the aura of his leadership, so admired just last summer as he resolutely dealt with terrorist attack and flood, fades out of sight, the Labour Party is left with a hole to fill, not just in its leadership but in its very political philosophy. They are all at it, trying to define their vision for a better Britain. Many, like David Miliband, believe it lies in a resurgent Blairism, but others believe it lies in yet more fiscal Brownian motion, just with more energy.

But in this enforced period of re-analysis, Labour and their progressive acolytes must hope that from the wreckage of this tragedy can be found some sort of meaning that makes it all worthwhile. New Leader, New Party. New Party, New Britain. There. That sounds like something that nice fellow used to say. Everything’s going to be all right, especially my job and pension.

Amid such drama, we are reminded of the precarious, if determined, hold politicians can have on their ministerial positions, but we are also reminded that political parties are faced with many and diverse challenges whether in power or opposition. If they are not trying to explain why a new initiative has failed to deliver us to the Promised Land then they are selling us some new scheme, funded by our taxes of course, that, this time, will solve all our troubles. Honest, just one more push lads.

But whilst the Labour government realises that there are sometimes no answers that will satisfy the public and a ravenous media, the Conservatives are grappling with the longer term problem of being in opposition, and establishing themselves in the minds of the electorate as a worthy government. That the negative polls are likely to do the job of getting them elected is of no matter, they still strive to convince as a government in waiting.

Those in opposition might operate under a softer spotlight, but politicians in opposition are like fish out of water. What they crave more than anything is the oxygen of power that enables them to breathe life into their policies as they test their pet theories on the public.

Therefore, the great challenge of being in opposition is not just to undermine the government but find a narrative that brings them, their party and their policies back into harmony with the electorate’s heartbeat. The question is how to couch this narrative in a way that both shores up their own core support yet entices wavering voters not sure which way to swing on polling day?

This conundrum has tested and baffled the Conservative Party in equal measure for a decade now but what must have made it doubly hard for successive leaderships under Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard to take, was the realisation that the very voters that were keeping them out of office were the same people that had kept them in power for eighteen years. Only now can they take heart that the same phenomenon is likely to do for Labour what it did to them in 1997.

For the last century, one sure characteristic of our bi-polar political system has been that the opposition was once the government and the government will one day become the opposition. That this transition is usually accompanied by a sobering blow to the windpipe as the electorate rejects them merely makes it worse.

The significant factor in Labour’s victory in 1997 was not the collapse of the Tories but the rehabilitation of socialism under the acceptable banner of the New Labour narrative. Tony Blair had merely added the final flourish, admittedly with much skill and plausibility, in the perception battle first fought by Neil Kinnock’s generation of Labour politicians fed up with opposition and exasperated by the crackpot image they had developed under Michael Foot.

This new narrative brought Labour rightwards along the well understood, if a little trite, spectrum of Left-Right politics. They had embraced, if tentatively, the market as the favourable means to allocate resources, they seemed happy with private home ownership and they did little to reverse Thatcher’s swinging Union reforms. Many would argue that they took these market reforms even further than any Conservative government would have dared.

And in this superficial convergence of the two main parties lies the so called charge that there is no longer any choice at election time, except between one incompetent lot that screwed up the country and another incompetent lot that screwed up the country a generation before that. Both parties, it is claimed, are indistinguishable from each other on the really big issues. Just like Labour did in 1997, the Conservatives pledge to follow Labour spending plans this time around.
But what real choice was there when it was a clear fight between Thatcher’s liberal market conservatives and the red red socialists of the 70s and 80s? Faced with that alternative, what right, excuse the pun, thinking person would have voted the Conservatives out?

But, there is an upside to this apparent convergence. As it becomes harder, at a superficial level, to see daylight between the two main parties, the electorate is forced to think a lot deeper about what is being served up and the Conservatives are forced to try a lot harder to explain why their political philosophy is so different to and better than Labour’s. If the Conservatives cannot rise to the challenge and present an identifiable and viable alternative to Labour then the next election might be a lot closer than many think it could possibly be.

So, what is this difference that the Conservatives must weave into their narrative for the country? What is the choice laid before us as we prepare to make support Conservatives, Liberals or apathy at the next election?

There are a number of differences between the two main political philosophies but it is the age old choice found in the Left-Right paradigm of Western politics between the person and the state that must be rammed home with the electorate. Whilst the Left has a natural inclination to fashion the country through the prism of state organisation the Right prefers to let people find their own solutions, only stepping in if things go seriously wrong.

This is why Labour governments, no matter how far they have come to the right in adopting market economics, have always had a tendency to grow the public and shrink the private spheres. And this government is no different. It is also why left wing claims that the fascist ideology is from the same stable as the conservative Right are mendacious. After all, the Nazi Party followed the National Socialist model of government in the tradition of all left wing governments. What defined and still defines them both is not their attitude to national or international movements but their dependence on state solutions to society’s problems.

It is time that Conservatives got to grips with the philosophy of the Right and showed the public that they are on their side against the growing incompetent ubiquity of the state whether it dances to a socialist, fascist or Labour tune. Make no mistake, the Left is eviscerating the personal and private worlds we fought two world wars to defend and the Right still cannot make its case for all to understand.

With every new bit of legislation and every new state sponsored initiative the Left is winning. ID cards, tax-devouring agencies, extra tiers of government, the EU, welfare dependence, increasing regulation, state monopoly of education, the nationalisation of child rearing and many more things are slowly creating what George Orwell, a socialist himself, railed against: the totalitarian state.

The state is slowly, but relentlessly, becoming our master as we receive our freedoms and handouts like a grateful beggar. We need to turn this relationship on its head and rediscover our status as subjects in command of the state rather than subservient clients of the state.

The Conservatives are probably going to win the next election, but only when they have the confidence to expound their philosophy that guards personal freedom against unnecessary state imposition will we, the public, be shown why being of the conservative Right is not to be at worst a Nazi and at best plain old ‘nasty’, but the champion of freedom for ourselves, our neighbours and our country.

Labour spin keeps on coming

2008-07-30T10:44:00.004+01:00

David Miliband is either stupid or a fibber, and I am pretty sure he is not stupid. In this recent attempt to set out his stall for the Labour leadership (whenever that contest begins), we see yet more of the same old Labour manipulation of the truth, lying, that is euphemistically called spin so as not to offend or leave people open to libel or slander.

“10 years of rising prosperity” he cheers, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it was based on foreign benevolence of cheap consumer production in the East, rising property prices fuelled by obscene debt in the UK and artificially low labour costs brought about by uncontrolled immigration. You do not need to be a racist or xenophobe to care about the effect cheap labour has on low income earners to cover rents and rising food and energy bills.

“Social norms around women’s and minority rights transformed” he crows, seemingly oblivious to the fact that militant feminism, of which their policies are merely the political expression, have done more to damage women than more traditional norms: teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, broken families, childlessness for the benefit of ‘career’. I am not aware of the conservative ethos forbidding freedom for women but I would rather a more circumspect and natural relationship between men and women than the Bacchanalian misery so many women and families are now subjected for the sake of progressive dogma. And see how neatly he confuses minority rights, which Conservatives have never had a problem with, for concerns over uncontrolled and rampant immigration, the impact of which we can only speculate. Brand your opponents racist: job done in his book.

He then goes on to attack the Conservative diagnosis of a broken society, cleverly suggesting that this is a ludicrous claim if it cannot be proven that absolutely everything is broken. One example of where things are OK and he thinks it proves everything is OK. Well it isn’t Miliband. He thinks crime is falling, and in broad terms he is right but never a word to acknowledge that the gradual pressure for more stringent penalties might have something to do with it, a measure his folk have consistently resisted. And the statistic that, since it was targeted, gun crime has been cut by 13% in a year misses the point that: the figure is taken from a spike; and these people still come from a society in a state of fracture, only the police have cracked down on them. This merely treats the symptom, not the cause.

And if he thinks that you take single parents out of state dependence by: using state money to fund childcare, giving them tax money in the shape of tax credits, rents, and other child handouts; he is truly deluded. Get this straight. When tax money is used to support a particular lifestyle, people are still dependent on the state. Just because you give the handouts a different name does not make them different.

“Falling school standards? No they are rising”. Well, if you think that better exam results through easier exams is the same thing as rising standards then fine, but you’re still an idiot. “More asylum seekers? No, we said we would reform the system and slash the numbers, and we did.” Yes, of course you did but only by reclassifying them as other classes of immigrant. Asylum seekers were never the sole gripe, as well he knows. The problem many Brits have is not asylum, of which they are still sympathetic, but the overall levels of migration to this country, a change they were never consulted on. But then, pretend the Conservatives hate all foreigners and asylum seekers and you have won the political battle in his mind.

Oh, and that’s a nice new mantra you have, “change”. Where did you get that one from?

Hazel Blears thinks she can tame Islam – idiot

2008-07-18T10:24:00.003+01:00

I suppose it should not come as a surprise to see yet another example of craven idiocy from a government minister but here we are again. This time Hazel Blears thinks she can control Islam and make it a cohesive part of ‘vibrant’ Britain.

British government plans to fund a board of Islamic theologians that will supposedly entrench a sort of reformed and enlightened British Islam, sidelining extremism, strengthening rights of women and Islamic loyalty to the country, yet again demonstrate a complete failure to understand the objectives of Islam: to own Britain.

Blears says it is her “job to support Muslim leaders on controversial issues”. She might think so but first, her later comment that “it is not for government to dictate on matters of faith or religious teaching” directly contradicts this view, and second, why does she want to use my taxes to support a religion I do not support and believe causes division in my country?

If Blears wants to know what is really going on she should take note of what Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, a leading imam with the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “establishing a specialist board was the brainchild of a group of Muslims, not the government.” Of course it was and what better way to further entrench Islam in our society? They are not interested in cooperation unless it is temporary and only to further the position of Islam in Britain to one day become the dominant cultural force; a trajectory Blears is naively assisting.

And the most telling words of the Sheik are: “Anything that helps to make our communities stronger should be welcomed - provided that it's not used to isolate, control or change what a community is.” Key words: our communities, meaning separated Muslim communities. And that they must not be changed in any way is because they believe Muslim communities under Sharia, are the finished article and superior in every way to established British community. This is a prelude to destruction, not integration or cooperation. After all, they have “made it clear that it's not for government to touch our theology or touch the way we train our people."

And what is the Blears fixation with “violent extremists”. This is not the problem but the demographic and cultural colonization that is at the heart of Jihad. She simply does not understand.

And what does she mean by saying “we have a responsibility to ensure that our young people are equipped with the skills they need to stand up to violent extremists”? If she thinks she can manipulate the Muslim community she is more stupid than she appears on TV and her faux statesmanlike call on “our young people” means nothing to established Britons. We do not have a problem with violent Islamic extremism as it is a culture completely alien to our own British culture. Get it right, it is not our affliction but theirs, only we have to suffer the twin affronts of their colonization and her conceit.

Remember, Islam is not a system where politics and religion can be separated. It is theocratic and based on the universal law of Sharia and the Hadith. In its most virulent form, it cannot respect national borders and therefore it cannot respect our political and legal customs; it must try to subborn them. Conversely, British culture is very much based on territoriality and the wishes of the people from that territory, hence our specific and peculiarly British take on law and democratic accountability. The two attitudes and traditions are incompatible, only people like Blears seem to want us to suffer for her own vanity and conceit.

President Bashir is not the only problem in Sudan

2008-07-15T09:57:00.005+01:00

The accusation of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, levelled at the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, might not come as a surprise but it is certainly a first. Never before has the International Criminal Court in The Hague gone this far but it is what we were all waiting for.

Some feared that Bush or Blair might be the first but, reassuringly, it is the Sudanese leader that the court’s Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo has in his sights.

Apart from the obvious human misery of at least 300,000 deaths at the hands of his ‘Janjaweed’ and countless stories of rape, brutality and the expulsion of Sudanese from their homes, what are we to think?

It seems to me that the story of Sudan and Darfur is as old as the hills and has come to epitomise our worst assumptions of the African continent. But what can we do about it? Well, first of all we must recognise the situation for what it is and not what we would like to think it is.

Yes, the fact that it has been a military dictatorship for the last 19 years, when Bashir seized power, probably has something to do with it. But not all military dictatorships indulge in genocide: Pakistan? We should therefore resist the temptation to think this is the significant reason for Sudan’s plight.

Yes, it appears, according to Panorama last night, that China is breaking the international arms embargo to supply numerous weapons and even aircraft to the regime that are in turn being used on those Sudanese unfortunates. But this is not the cause of the fighting. It is not the weapon but the man behind the weapon that causes the destruction. I do not see France or Germany indulging in genocide at the moment and they both have military hardware.

Yes, this is Africa and all Africans are natural killers and brutes are they not? Think only of Rwanda and now Zimbabwe, not to mention countless other cases. Perhaps this is the natural state of the continent? No, of course it is not. Yes, there are problems of corruption, brutality and civil war but they are not genetically programmed that way.

So what is the fundamental problem in Sudan? I will tell you what the problem is and it is one we in the West are incapable of recognising for historical, political and cultural reasons. The problem is that different peoples of different cultures are trying to live in the same land space and it has sparked off.

This is exactly the problem we faced in the Former Yugoslavia and only ethnic cleansing, national separation and war fatigue stopped the killing. This is largely the problem in Iraq, sparked by our own bone-headed approach to removing Saddam Hussein.

Bashir and his government are largely of Arab ancestry, although mixed with African blood and the targets of the Janjaweed, the Arab speaking African tribes, are not. That is the fundamental problem.

Arguably, the ‘insurgency’ was sparked by the black African rebels rising up in 2003 against the Arab-dominated regime. It is culture that so often lies at the bottom of these crises but we are incapably of accepting the implications.

In years gone by we would have recognised this and simply redrawn the lines on the map and at a stroke the problem would have been defused. In volatile areas like Sudan, jurisdictions of states are more peaceful and legitimate if they largely correspond with jurisdictions of nations. Whilst we resolutely refuse to recognise this simple and long term solution to much of the world’s conflict because we think it betrays racism, we perpetuate the conflict.

We need to grow up and stop prodding at the problem. We need to redraw the map, deploy peacekeepers to manage the population flow and then police the border until the new nation states begin to get along with each other. Is this going to happen? No, of course it is not.

No-one has an absolute right to settle in another country

2008-07-12T10:30:00.006+01:00

This report of a Moroccan woman being denied French citizenship because the "radical practice of her religion" is deemed "incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes" might seem extreme but without such robust measures, Western Civilisation as we know it - or thought we knew it - will cease to exist.

The fact that she is married to a French national and her three children were born in the country might also make this judgement appear draconian but this should not be used as a reason to guarantee citizenship of any nation.

Citizenship is not a right for any foreigner to take up just because they feel like it but a privilege for them and a symbol that they are of that culture and nation, not just a resident in it. They want to live in civilised countries yet refuse to buy into the existing culture. They often come from deeply uncivilized and repressive countries yet believe that their culture has nothing to do with that repression.

Or do they?

It is becoming better known that Jihad is not just a violent struggle against the unbeliever but also a peaceful struggle to see Islam dominate at the expense of all other cultures and religions.

The slow death of enlightened Western culture is being brought about by creeping colonization and the imposition of Islam under our customs of plurality yet we cannot see what is going on. Every day we wake up and our countries are more alien to us and we seldom do anything about it, either because we do not see what is going on or we believe we are powerless to do anything about it.

So, when France denies citizenship to a foreign national we should take heart that we can do something about this creeping colonisation and corruption of our hard won culture of freedom and sovereignty.

But they should be prepared to go one further, just because a child is born in a country should not mean they are entitled to citizenship of that country; just because someone marries a citizen of a foreign country should not mean they themselves become citizens of that country (they can remain resident, but citizenship: certainly not).

Our culture of peace and civility is dieing, we have to do more to save it.

Inflation is not just an increase in prices

2008-07-03T10:53:00.002+01:00

Once a month, inflation becomes the hot topic as the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England deliberate over whether to increase or decrease interest rates, or just plain leave them alone. This month, CPI reached 3.3%, a clear 1.3% above the Chancellor’s 2% target and the commensurate base rate of interest was 5%.

However, when we discuss what to do with interest rates we are really discussing inflation: what is it and what do we do to control it?

The mistake we currently make is that we believe the government when it says the CPI is the same thing as inflation; it patently is not. It is just an index of goods and services. We could equally take the RPI, or the RPIX or even make up another index by which we measure inflation. Why should we not have any number of indices, made up of all manner of goods and services?

An index is only ever a basket of 'representative' goods and services so it can never represent the whole market. And as we know, the CPI does not include house prices which have been a major contributor to overall inflation (too much money following too few assets).

A parallel is worth making with managed funds and tracker indices in the stock market. Trackers, in effect, use a basket of all shares in the market, whereas, managed funds try to beat the market by selecting only those shares the managers think will perform best. Fund managers eventually get found out by the whole market, as do governments when they try to peddle the myth that an index, including a small sample of goods and services, can represent whole inflation.

Which brings us to the critical question: what is and what causes inflation?
Inflation, in my opinion, needs to be viewed in two ways: first as an indication of prices as determined by supply and demand. We can see this at work with oil, mineral and food prices. When demand rises without a commensurate increase in supply, the price of these discrete goods goes up.

But in a sense, this does not reflect true inflation (value of money), only a rise in the price of these specific things. As I mentioned before, the CPI is only a basket of goods and services and so does not reflect the whole market. In a pure economic sense, if the price of specific goods (oil, food, minerals) goes up, we either buy less of them or forego the purchase of other things. There has been no whole market inflation, only a re-balancing of what we spend our money on.

So, this brings me to the second way we need to look at inflation. True inflation, the erosion of the value of a currency, is and always was primarily determined by the supply of money. And as the government has presided over an increase in the money supply since it came to power, all that happens is that, in the absence of increased productivity to absorb it fully, prices go up to absorb the extra money washing around the economy.

Inflation is not just an indication of price but an indication of the value of our currency. Just because one type of good goes up does not mean that the economy is inflationary, it could just mean that supply and demand has created new price equilibrium as in the case of oil, food and minerals. The really damaging form of inflation is when the value of our currency is eroded and that is usually brought about by increases in the money supply and poor productivity. Address these two things and we might just do a little better.

They just keep pushing

2008-07-01T18:21:00.003+01:00

The next relentless step.

Spot the difference

2008-06-30T18:11:00.004+01:00

Is this a racist murder?

Culture is more important than values

2008-06-30T12:20:00.001+01:00

Why is it that we tend to buy the line that the British way is forged only by abstract and simplistic concepts like human rights, democracy? The British way is informed by so much more. It is the product of our common political, social and cultural experience.

If we want to defend our way then we must understand how our way came into being and, therefore, what will sustain it.

The key here is common. We mostly believe that democracy is good because of our common history that saw us struggle and fight for it through the evolution of parliamentary democracy.

We believe in liberty (or freedom as is more relevant to Britons) because of our Magna Carta and Bill of Rights.

And we feel so strongly about these things because they are our inheritance, fought for and secured by our ancestors. In short, they form our inheritance which cannot be claimed by others.

And for us to remain attached to this inheritance we must continue to see it as ours which we cannot do if we see our values as the product of abstract theory, rather than common experience.

Our Nonsense of a Legal System

2008-06-28T10:25:00.004+01:00

It appears that our legal system has produced another fine mess. Yet another "man alleged to be one of al-Qa'eda's most important operatives in Europe is due to be freed from a British prison next week", reportedly.

It really is becoming increasingly difficult for a normal Englishman to fathom what has become of this country. It is plain to see how this confusion manifests itself but infinitely more difficult to reason why we have allowed it to happen.

But what I want to know is this:

1. Why is he being placed on "bail" if he has not been charged with a criminal offence. I thought people went on bail after charge, not before it. This seems like an unacceptable infringement of his freedom and an affront to habeas corpus. OK, we can argue that in these extenuating circumstances we must be allowed to control those we think are likely to blow us up but given the creeping totalitarianism, further illustrated by the proposed Equalities Bill that endorses discrimination (the very practice it wishes to outlaw), we should understand that this is the thin edge of the wedge. Who really trusts our politicians to limit their powers? Not me, that is for sure.

2. But more than this, if he is an "Algerian", and we suspect that he is a "terrorist leader who recruited, trained and facilitated operations", why on earth is he not deported?

3. Why, also, are we placing people under "house arrest"? Surely this is the sort of draconian practice reserved for banana republics like Zimbabwe?

It seems to me (I know the Left would consider me a racist, xenophobic bigot) that we have created a nonsense of a criminal justice system that on the one hand infringes our liberties by ever more draconian control measures (and now we have 42 day detention without charge) whilst on the other hand, can no longer determine who we let into this country.

Determining which foreigners can and cannot live in this country is a fundamental requirement for any nation. Therefore, we have truly abolished Britain and those that have nowhere else to go are left to weep at its destruction.

Not Yet Overstretched My Arse

2008-06-25T10:26:00.004+01:00

I note that in the report of the latest British fatality in Afghanistan a Ministry of Defence spokesman said this:

"It is true the Armed Forces are working very hard and we recognise that this cannot go on for ever. The British Armed Forces are very stretched, but not yet overstretched. We continue to invest in our personnel, equipment, training and logistical support."

Let me correct this muppet:

1. The British Army IS overstretched. It is not structured to fight two wars simultaneously but has been for the last two years. It does not have enough helicopter support for COIN operations and the vehicles it uses lack the protection to defeat the IED and mine threat.

2. The MOD and the government DOES NOT recognise that this cannot go on for ever ever. The Army was overstretched the day I joined in 1997 and remains so to this day.

It is platitudes like this that so angers Service personnel from all three Services, especially the Army. The Army itself is not perfect but those that govern us and determine Political Strategic policy are idiots who are wholly incapable of determining how the Army should be structured and used to further its foreign policy and defence objectives.

The Irish do what we should have done ourselves

2008-06-13T15:20:00.003+01:00

Not since the Duke of Wellington's time has Britain owed so much to the Irish. Let us hope that their rejection of the EU Lisbon Treaty gives courage to us on mainland Britain to reject it and move to renegotiate our position.

Violent Society

2008-06-07T10:39:00.003+01:00

Let's hope these stats are enough to prevent any politician from claiming violence is not getting worse in Britain. Overall 'stab' and 'slash' wounds treated in hospital up significantly over the last decade. Overall number of children under 14 treated for such wounds up significantly over the last decade.

And the reason is simple:

1. Breakdown of the family unit where children learn right and wrong.
2. Poor discipline in schools that gives children blurred boundaries.
3. A human rights culture that says I have the right to this but no responsibility for that.
4. An indiscriminate welfare state that fosters selfishness in its supplicants.
5. Unquestioning abortion that brutalises women and devalues life.
6. Unlimited immigration that fragments society.
7. Unthinking feminism that subverts the civilising influence of femininity.
8. And all this can be traced to our rejection of Anglican Christianity and its fundamental tenets of goodness and morality.

All this can be changed by any government. Not overnight, but over time we can regain some semblance of civility and decency in British society.

Debauching the Civil Service

2008-05-22T15:08:00.004+01:00

I have just come across this advertisement for the post of Ministerial Media Visits Coordinator:

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is looking for a talented IO to join our busy and friendly national press office. A proactive and creative communicator, you will come up with ideas for newsworthy ministerial visits and know how to sell them into the media.

So deep rooted has the culture of spin and obfuscation become that they do not even bother to hide what they are doing to the Civil Service.

Instead of coming up with ideas for "newsworthy ministerial visits" would it not be more to the point for the minister to visit the places he needs to in order to do the job properly.

And instead of choosing to "sell them into the media", how about just briefing the media where the minister will be, when and for what purpose.

These people deserve nothing but our contempt.

Gordon - Your Fired

2008-05-14T10:34:00.003+01:00

£2.7 billion more national debt simply to save your political skin?

10p tax solutions

2008-05-13T17:49:00.003+01:00

And so the government has finally settled on a solution to the 10p tax mess. Apart from the typically wordy statement and usual Labour guff about how great they are, they have surely settled on the simplest solution. But, by simply raising the tax free allowance they have saddled the nation with another £2.7 billion of debt. A drop in the £600 billion ocean of debt we already have but one would have thought we should be reducing it, not extending yet again.

Anyway, Labour will think this solves all their problems but they just do not get it.

Proposals for a Citizen's Pension

2008-05-12T11:14:00.003+01:00

The vexed issue of pension provision and social care have raised their ugly heads again so how about a suggestion which concentrates on the state pension system. After all the state pension should be used to pay for retirement in good health and bad.

Currently, the state pays the in year state pension bill of those at pensionable age and above from current taxation. In effect this signs the government up for eternity to a bill that it will increasingly find difficult to meet as we live longer in old age.

The primary weakness of this system is that the government cannot really control the costs of state pensions without directly affecting the income of pensioners - an incendiary political issue. The other weakness is that recipients of state pensions continually fail to make the connection between personal saving and responsibility with their own retirement costs and standard of living. After all, one of the major
headaches of the government is to get people to put more of their own money in savings as opposed to smoking it or drinking it away.

The solution - or a suggestion at least - is that the government stops paying the money to state pensioners at pensionable age but gives them the money as pension contributions throughout their lives making it almost the same as a private pension. Therefore, from the age of 18 or perhaps 21, each citizen receives a flat monthly payment that must be deposited into a pension plan.

The benefits of this system are that the government can more easily control pension costs free from the contention that reducing pensioners' income brings. It also allows each citizen to know how much they have in pension savings today rather than hang out for a future promise of a weekly payment that might be radically reduced or not depending on the whim of the government and the prosperity of the nation. But finally and most importantly, the individual citizen gains more control over their own pension saving and can top up this pension as they would do for a normal private pension. At one stroke, pensions remain largely funded by the state but are put in the control of the citizen. And I would call this the citizen's pension.

Job searches should be easy

2008-05-10T18:51:00.003+01:00

Why is it that online jobs sites have sections for administration, construction, banking, consultancy, media, sales and the like but no sections for interesting, fun, stimulating and rewarding? Job seekers could save themselves from an age of keyboard bashing if they could only filter out the jobs nobody really wants or the careers it is advisable to have a lobotomy for. You would have thought those IT boffins would have sorted this one out by now, wouldn't you?

The City Salute with Princes William and Harry

2008-05-07T21:55:00.005+01:00

Some things the BBC does extremely well and tonight's coverage of "The City Salute with Princes William and Harry" was no exception. Then again, when it comes to coverage of royal and military ceremonial events they have always done well. If anyone missed it preferring instead the Soap Awards on the other side then I think you have missed out.

Flanked by members of all three services, many of them injured in recent operations, the two princes surveyed the event with its customary music, marching and fly pasts. The whole event was compered by Jeremy Clarkson, a friend of the Armed Forces and supporter of Help for Heroes, the newly created charity that supports rehabilitation services.

Many of us understand in basic terms what service personnel do but those that have not served themselves cannot understand its exact nature and the truly exceptional demands of service life, especially at the sharp end. It was therefore pleasing to see Ross Kemp, another friend of the Armed Forces, quoting Field Marshal Slim's words about the soldier.

Not only a soldier's officer, he was arguably the most accomplished military leader of the Second World War. But he is not so well known as figures like Montgomery partly because he was less politically motivated but also because his campaign took place in Asia.

SACRIFICE, he recognised as the primary characteristic of the British soldier but less well know is his GENTLENESS. But these are the hallmarks of the British soldier and we do not always recognise it. As Ross Kemp concluded to the audience both in the City and on television in his own words: "It is your army and on it much more yet might depend".

The Band of HM Royal Marines then treated the crowds and the precision of their drum work was exceptional. An exemplary demonstration of attention to detail so important to any military unit. They were all there and even the Household Cavalry Regiment showed us the contrast between the old of the ceremonial horse and the new of the
operational recce vehicle.

The live events were interspersed with film excerpts from operational theatres but the especial focus was on highlighting the sacrifice that Bill Slim mentioned so much in his writing and that Ross Kemp referred to in his reading.

The Lord Mayor of London and his entourage completed the affair with a call for three cheers for all members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces AND their families. Quite right too.

Many will say they deserve no more recognition than anyone else for just doing their job, after all they all volunteered did they not. Well yes, and also no. That is just it. It is because they are all volunteers that their sacrifice is all the more special and worth recognition. They are a credit to this faltering, fracturing and uncertain nation of ours.

Ship of State in good hands

2008-05-05T23:10:00.003+01:00

I have the utmost confidence in Gordon Brown's ability to steer the Ship of State

through present storms. How about you?

Police, laziness and drugs

2008-05-05T18:19:00.008+01:00

Every now and then some innocuous event plays itself out in front of you and is immediately recognisable as illustrative of much bigger things. Today, reading a book for a while in a well known London park, one such event took place that made me sit up and think: why is it that the police consider it a good idea to drive their cars, emblazoned with the motto "making for a safer London", through a London park crammed with people?

Time and again these cars (there were more than one) drove through the park and even at this stage I was thinking: 'why don't these people get out and walk, at least that way they would appear a little more engaged with the public?'

I did not think much more of this until one of these cars then proceeded to drive onto the grass and park under a tree not 10 meters away from me and a group of students. The policemen then got out and asked an astonishing question to the students: "have you been smoking marijuana?"

Unsurprisingly, they said no - top quality interrogation - and the policemen sheepishly wished them the best for the rest of the afternoon and got back in their motor and drove off. What an insipid, lazy an ineffectual example of the nation's finest.

Too lazy and thick to patrol on foot; too lazy, in fact, to park on the tarmac, preferring to save their little feet a walk of not more than 30 meters; and too timid to search them for drugs if they thought that was what they were up to (I hasten to add that they were all white so fear of being branded racist cannot have been the reason).

No wonder the public seems to hold them in so little regard and no wonder that thugs treat them and their authority with contempt.

But what then capped it all was the conversation of the students after they had gone: one of them describing with much mirth how his father mistakenly thought he had been binge drinking one night earlier that week when in fact he had been doing some sort of drug.

So, we have police too thick to engage with the public on their feet, too lazy to get out of their cars until they absolutely have to, too timid to search people for drugs if they suspect them of being in possession and we have a public that thinks nothing of taking drugs and talking about it in public as if it is some jape.

I am not an old fart but a more revealing sketch depicting some of what is wrong with modern Britain would be hard to find.

And on a quick tangent, I still find it despicable that our politicians have our service personnel risking their lives and killing in the war against drugs in Afghanistan when at home they can do nothing more than avoid the demonstrable fact that those who demand and take drugs are the ones perpetuating the trade.

Gordon Brown on the Andrew Marr Show

2008-05-04T09:58:00.003+01:00

Just been listening to Gordon Brown on the Andrew Marr program. Not too bad a performance but I am afraid it did not offer much to convince of a significant revival (this does not mean they will definitely lose the next election).

One thing that struck me was his comment that we have a complex tax system. Of course we do, and what have you done to simplify it? Nothing, except remove the 10p tax rate but in your recent climbdown you proceeded to insert complexity in other areas: more tax credits and winter heating allowances.

This is a simple point. We now have one of the longest tax code books in the world and Gordon Brown is the architect of this system. Whatever he says now cannot disguise the fact that it is not only hindering the economy but making it more difficult for people to understand just what their liability is. And that is the way he likes it. After all, in his opinion it seems, all money belongs to the state and we get back what he deigns to give us.

Reasons for Labour misfortune

2008-05-03T12:35:00.002+01:00

Today is the day that the Labour post mortem begins. Well, it began sometime ago when it was clear that they were in for a torrid time in the local elections but now that the votes have been counted not even the formidable, if delusional, Labour machine can explain the bad showing away.

And the question that they will be asking themselves is why? Why have the voters deserted them to give the Conservatives 45% of the vote and Labour only 24% behind the Liberal Democrats on 25%?

Some will blame it on Gordon, others on mid-term blues, maybe the legacy of Blair still hovers with the menace Thatcher brought for Major. Perhaps the poor showing was about the 10p rate or maybe it is just what happens when any party has been in power for so long?

But like every turn of fortune, there is usually a myriad of reasons which are clearly identifiable but utterly unquantifiable.

Here are some suggestions: high tax, growing welfarism, uncontrolled immigration, party funding scandals, the client state, poor education, 42 day detention, the surveillance culture, the EU Reform Treaty, high indebtedness (private and public) and many more.

All these issues are being dealt with in a way redolent of the Left's ideology but it seems the public mood, contrary to the orthodoxy of the media and establishment, wishes them to be dealt with in a way more in tune with the Right's philosophy.

Is this a vote for the Right or is it a demonstration of unhappiness with Labour. What is certain is that each faction will explain the shift in electoral fortune through the prism of their own ideology. And in this we should be pleased. Just maybe we can begin to hear from the politicians what we know to be the fundamental dividing lines between the Left and the Right rather than the insipid colonisation of the mythical centre ground that endears no-one.

Time will tell.

Why is a 45% electoral turnout good?

2008-05-03T10:54:00.005+01:00

Just heard that the turnout for the London Mayoral election was 45% and everyone is reporting it as a triumph. Well, a record showing at least but I hardly think we should take this figure as an indication of our commitment to the democratic process.

It is not as if there was a lack of choice. After all, we could have chosen from such options as the Left List, the Greens, BNP (gained a seat in the London Assembly I hear) and UKIP, not to mention the safer options of Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and several more.

Boris has now been declared the winner of the 2008 London Mayoral election and there seems to be a slight lift in the mood of the country - at least as portrayed by the media, however, the stats indicate what could have been if everyone had turned out and voted another way.

Out of an electorate of 5,419,913 there were 2,456,990 papers counted. This is the turnout of 45.33% hailed as a record turnout which leaves a staggering 2,962,923 voters that did not turn out. If we note that Boris got 1,043,761 first choice votes at 42.48% of the turnout, then if all those that did not bother had done so and voted for the Green candidate, Sian Berry, or the BNP candidate, Richard Barnbrook, then they would have got more than 50% of the first choice vote and would now be getting ready to be sworn in as London Mayor.

Just thought some might find these stats interesting. I suppose some might be thankful that so many people just cannot be bothered to stumble several hundred yards from their front door and mark a cross in a little box. There are so many more important things to do, are there not?

Oh, and one last stat. Boris' first choice votes comprised 19% of the London electorate.

The Boris and Cameron Show

2008-05-03T01:36:00.005+01:00

What a lovely picture this is of the two triumphant Tories. But my wonder is just who is holding whose hand?

It will be interesting to see how this new power balance plays out, not in the sense that Boris may drop a clanger but that he is now the Conservative politician with the most political power and the only one to hold serious office - if the office of London Mayor is serious, that is.

We have got used to the taunts of the Left saying that Boris is a fool and a jester but they underestimate him if they think he is thick as one unbelievable Labour video stated in no uncertain terms through the medium of song.

Who would have thought a year ago that Boris would be the number one or number two Tory a year hence. Well, now he is and we should observe with interest how the relationship with Cameron develops.

P.S. Has anyone noticed how we tend to refer to Boris by his first name and Cameron by his second? Is this significant?

Not Labour's Fault

2008-05-02T19:11:00.004+01:00

It seems that they just do not get it. Yvette Cooper on Channel 4 News still pedals the myth that their only mistake has been the 10p tax fiasco. The main reasons, according to them, for their electoral failures this time are: mid-term blues and the international economic situation.

Of course it cannot have anything to do with Gordon Brown's own standing in the country, increasing taxation, increasing national debt, the Brown sponsored private debt bubble, uncontrolled immigration, the EU Reform Treaty, crime, a fragmenting society and the rest of it.

And the last fantastic comment was that the Conservatives also benefited from the electorate's lack of scrutiny - how weak is that?

The spin machine has been hard at work only I think the public is beginning to rumble their shallow game.

Election Warnings

2008-05-02T09:53:00.002+01:00

Already the commentators are extrapolating the local election results into a victory for the Conservative Party at the next general election. With about 44% of the vote going Tory and the Lib Dems - if you can believe it - their nearest rivals on about 25% of the vote it seems a done deal and we can all rejoice.

But let me be the first to sound a note of warning. I will be pleased if the Conservatives win the next election if only because it will mean that this mean, conceited and unpatriotic Labour lot will have been ejected from power. Such a crew of villains and idiots are a disgrace to the offices they hold and the dignity of our country. It cannot come soon enough.

However, the word of warning is this: the issues that we should judge any government on are the big, strategic issues of the day. I hope the Conservatives win the election but I hope even more that they have the courage to tackle these great issues head on and in line with conservative philosophy: Patriotism, nation, tradition, freedom, small state, law and order, strong institutions and confidence in our country and people.

If they buckle from this as I fear they may, we will be no better off and the change of government will be only cosmetic.

They must address the growing power of the EU, the effect of rampant and uncontrolled immigration, inward colonisation by hostile peoples, politicised education, increasing taxation, the burgeoning welfare and client state and the intrusion of the state in our private business.

You have been warned.

House Prices - Who is to blame?

2008-04-09T10:52:00.002+01:00

As the media has now officially reported that house prices are falling and will continue to fall in the UK it is worth revisiting the cause of the present problem:

Mass Immigration. The Labour government opened our doors to mass immigration which in effect increased the overall demand for housing. An increase in demand equals an increase in prices.

Easy Credit. Under Gordon Brown’s watch, credit in the housing market has ballooned which in effect increased the supply of money. An increase in the supply of money equals an increase in prices.

Family Fragmentation. Labour policies have exacerbated the trend towards single occupancy households. As tax, welfare and moral relativism have entrenched themselves into our society, so has there been a breakdown in the nuclear and extended family. This has in effect increased the demand on housing. An increase in demand equals an increase in prices.

It would be balanced of me to acknowledge the inability of supply to keep pace with this increasing demand but although economically correct misses the point. These three factors are what has upset the equilibrium and caused the house price bubble and they were all within the control of the government (not completely but mostly) which wilfully or incompetently ignored them.

As we look for scapegoats and people to blame, it is just as well to go back to the start point: government policy that has caused one hell of a mess. It has put prices beyond the reach of most first time buyers and it has caused a bubble that will catch some, if not many, in negative equity.

Defence Cuts?

2008-03-29T17:21:00.004Z

This post on CentreRight has just raised the specter that "the Treasury want to impose an astonishing £1 billion cut in Britain's defence budget". And yes, "Britain's armed forces are already massively overstretched fighting on two separate fronts".

One to watch.

FreedomWatch

2008-03-29T14:49:00.004Z

LiveLeak surely did the right thing by pulling Geert Wilders' film, Fitna, but the fact that they had to only reinforces the central message of the film itself. I know little about Wilders but like him or not, agree with him or not, it cannot be right to suppress his voice (especially as he is an elected politician - in his own country that is). Surely he is free to say what he wishes within the law and especially if much of what he says is demonstrably true. I am however puzzled by his wishes to ban the Koran. Freedom of speech surely goes both ways.

Reducing Government Spending

2008-03-28T11:39:00.002Z

As the political Right continues to demand tax cuts now, the Conservative Party continues to resist, preferring to match Labour spending for their first term. The reason for Conservative reticence is, in fact, quite simple and sound in logic.

To simply reduce taxes with no commensurate reduction in spending merely puts more pressure on borrowing which at about £600 billion is quite enormous enough – and a little obscene – already.

Government Spending = Tax + Borrowing.

This equation is quite simple and makes it clear that Government Spending is the key factor in tax rates and borrowing levels. Reduce what is on the right hand side without addressing what is on the left and the books cease to balance.

So, what we actually want from the Conservative Party – or any other party for that matter – is a list of things the government should stop doing with a price tag. With a bit of luck we can reach a figure that enables a reduction in taxation, and or borrowing that satisfies all on the political Right and makes the UK a little more competitive to boot.

Not sure what catchy name to give this list but until something more sexy comes up let’s stick with Government Spending Reduction List (GSRL). First entry suggestions are most welcome.

With teachers like these?

2008-03-26T13:41:00.010Z

Should we really be surprised that “The National Union of Teachers (NUT) has announced that it will oppose attempts by the army to promote military recruitment in schools”? No, not really.

They will undoubtedly say they only have the best interests of children in mind but the politicized diatribe spoken at the recent conference belies what is really on their minds.

They call military recruiting information “propaganda” as if it is akin to Nazi literature. They talk of “imperial occupation” as if we were back in the 19th century and they suggest recruits will be sent to “possibly torture fellow human beings” as if this was the Army’s purpose in life.

Indeed, nobody, not least those in the Armed Forces, want children to be misled but recruits get plenty of opportunity to leave the Army and if they have not been watching the news then whose fault is that? Anyway, most soldiers I ever came across knew exactly what the Army involved and were quite prepared to volunteer nevertheless.

No, this vote is not a demonstration of the NUT’s concern for school children but an expression of their latent Marxist, Left wing ideology that many of them are still wedded to. They do not criticize the Army because they think it uses unfair methods to attract recruits but because it represents to them all that they hate: patriotism, duty, service and Monarchy.

Anyway, one would have thought that there were more pressing issues for them to address like not churning out functionally illiterate teenagers with not a single qualification to their name. But then with teachers like these, who needs an incompetent education system to screw up our children?

Would a Serviceman make a better President?

2008-03-21T13:08:00.006Z

How rare, and therefore how more refreshing, it is to find a leader of a major political party that has served in the Armed Forces. Our most recent example was Ian Duncan-Smith but he never really stood any chance of becoming Prime Minister.

It might be fashionable to want the US Republican Party out of the White House at all costs, even if that means installing Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, the Democrat contenders, but would it not be better to have an old Serviceman at the helm whilst the West is still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Senator John McCain might have noted that Prince Harry’s “willingness and his eagerness to serve provides an inspiration to other young men and women to serve the cause of freedom in Afghanistan” but his own record is none too shabby either.

Not only did he demonstrate selflessness in serving in Vietnam – whilst others in a similar situation did all they could to avoid service in that controversial war – but he also endured five years as a prisoner of war after ejecting from his plane. I would have thought this made him a little more qualified to run a war than his opponents and indeed our own leaders.

So, before we condemn him just for being of the same party as President Bush, we should at least consider that he is not the same man and has been shaped by entirely different experiences.

The importance of Christianity to British civilisation

2008-03-21T11:41:00.005Z

At last, a Church of England cleric who has the courage to state the obvious and speak up for the Christian Church and its importance to British civilisation. Just a few tit-bits:

About the recent attack on Canon Michael Ainsworth by Muslim youths: So why were the police, and much of the media, so vague as to call these thugs "Asians"? If I smashed the windows of a Brick Lane curry house and gave the manager two black eyes, you can be sure the police and the papers wouldn't describe me as a “European”.
And excusing the evasiveness on the grounds that it preserves good racial and community relationships: appeasement always encourages worse violence in the long run.
On the Archbishop of Canterbury’s talk about accommodating Sharia Law in the UK: He, with his whole hierarchy, strains at gnats and swallows camels.
On the treatment of Christians in some countries compared with their treatment here: If I tried to walk down the main street in Riyadh wearing my clerical collar, the religious police would throw me into jail. In Britain we allow Muslims to build huge mosques in prominent places such as Regent's Park.
On the record of successive British governments: for 40 years our governments in Britain have done nothing but undermine the essential quality of our way of life and those elected to defend the realm have destroyed it and the authority of Parliament is a joke in an age ruled by spin and the Prime Minister's gang of party interest and New Labour has created its own client state and the NHS is a disgrace and "State education" is an oxymoron.
On the Church’s attitude to the more destructive elements of the sexual and social revolution of the 1960s: We might have expected the Church to resist the decay, but instead it has connived.
On the survival of the good things we have inherited in our way of life if we ditch Christianity: Christianity formed Western civilisation and is so consubstantial with it that if Christianity goes, the lot goes with it.

To a lot of people, this is reactionary and alarmist nonsense. But take a closer look at history and watch how things continue to develop if we do nothing apart from meekly accept what is put before us by the relativists, apologists and self haters that have controlled Britain for the last fifty years.

Ofsted move on the Armed Forces

2008-03-20T14:16:00.003Z

I see here that Ofsted is now to carry out the independent inspections of the Armed Forces recruit training establishments. I have not got a problem with independent inspections as such but hope that this is not just another ‘civilianisation’ move that undermines the military ethos in favour of the civilian one that is clearly better.

Let us not forget that the Deepcut saga was created, more than anything else, by the civilianisation of many aspects of recruit training that saw the recruit-military instructor ratio slashed.

And I hope the Director of the Learning and Skills’ use of the term “Armed Services” does not represent the organisation’s subconscious attitude. The three Services are not called the Armed Services; they are called the Armed Forces. I look forward to the report of the first inspection with interest.

More money for the Armed Forces?

2008-03-19T15:45:00.003Z

It appears that our part time Defence Secretary remains undaunted by holding down two jobs when one of them involves fighting two wars miles from home – what a man! He has just announced two new measures aimed at rewarding those who stay in the Armed Forces.

First, there will be an enhanced retention bonus paid to Service personnel and second, there will be a new £20 million pilot scheme offering more affordable home ownership for Service personnel and their families.

We might rejoice at this development; finally the government rewarding our dutiful Service personnel. But, will this be new money? I doubt it. As ever, money is squeezed into new initiatives but at the expense of something else. And what is the result? The jam is spread ever thinner.

If somebody could show me that this is new money then I will accept this announcement for what it is promoted as. If not then it is business as usual: good sounding initiatives but at the expense of something else.

Sorting out the Credit Crunch

2008-03-19T11:20:00.005Z

I know nothing about the credit crunch but I will have a go anyway:

At times like these it is easy and understandable to want to find someone to blame. Some argue that this is not helpful at this stage of a crisis but I disagree. It is what we do with that blame that is important. To identify the culprits is both cathartic in itself and important for the future.

First and foremost, blame lies with the financial institutions that are now suffering: Northern Rock, Bear Stearns and the rest we do not yet know about. Through their reckless pursuit of profit their bosses have exposed not just their institutions but the whole financial system to highly geared risk that was always going to bite back. It was just a matter of when.

Many would like to see them punished for what they have done and so there is a certain amount of Schadenfreude floating around. We want to see them lose their jobs, we want to see them make huge losses but we only draw back from dancing in the streets because we know that if they fall, they will take us with them.

And this is the problem. If the financial system suffers, we all suffer. Businesses, dependent on credit will fall, suppliers will not be paid and there will be job losses. And who is then going to pay off all those mortgages we have taken out?

But it is not just the financial institutions that are to blame. Our government has needlessly exposed us to the risk. By taking away the Bank of England’s responsibility for managing all financial institutions, a vital break and wise head has been removed from the system. If they had retained responsibility, might they have been able, with a quiet word in the ear of Northern Rock bosses, to reduce their risk exposure before things got out of hand?

A great myth is that capitalists and free marketers want no external control of markets. But, apart from the ideologues perhaps, that is far from the truth. Having rules is not the same thing as being fully controlled. Regulation of some sort is essential for the smoother running of the economy and it was needed in this case. Perhaps we would not have got 125% and multiple salary mortgages.

The government has also used an inflation measure (CPI) that ignored significant inflationary pressures. They also encouraged the mortgage boom, knowing that it was producing that stable growth Gordon Brown is so fond of telling us about. That it was based on unsound finance and high risk did not bother him; until now that is.

But the ones we must also blame are ourselves. We cannot absolve ourselves of our responsibility. We took out those ridiculous mortgages, we consumed like there was no tomorrow, we filled up out credit cards to buy rubbish and we tolerated a Chancellor with a flawed economic policy.

But what do we do now? Begin a round of condemnation and reprisal? No, there is a serious problem in the credit market and if we do not manage it well then we all suffer. What should be done?

First we must prepare for a bumpy ride. Businesses will fail, people will lose their jobs and there will be numerous defaults on mortgages. It is too late for an easy solution to be found.

Second, we must try to separate good debt from the bad. We must ensure that the crunch does not prevent credit being granted for what are still good business models and viable mortgage repayment plans. Where there are bad debts, we must encourage the swift cancellation of that debt and if that means repossession and bankruptcy then so be it. But above all, bad debt and sentimentality must not be allowed to contaminate what remains solid in the economy.

Then, the government must authorise the release of money so credit can continue to flow, probably at a level just below that which is being requested to force institutions to get rid of their bad debts yet maintain the good. Strings must also be attached. Institutions demanding more money should demonstrate that they are good for it. Somehow we need to purge the system of the impurities that have been allowed to build up over the last few years.

And then, once the market has stabilised, we can go in for the “I told you so” routine. We can then reduce government debts, we can then use a proper inflation index, we can then reduce government spending, we can then tighten up credit rules and we can then burn the fat cats in the streets. But until things are a little more stable we must just bite the bullet and get on with sorting out this mess that we have all created.

Our attitudes to Service personnel

2008-03-18T16:33:00.009Z

And on a similar theme as below, it appears that compensation awards for Service personnel injured on operations remain out of kilter with the rest.

This article reports that an MOD civil servant who "strained his back picking up a printer" has been awarded £202,000 in compensation. No problems you might think, but in comparison to the award of £57,587 for Private Cooper who, whilst in Basra, "suffered serious internal injuries, a shattered pelvis, and also damaged his leg and lost the use of a hand", it does not seem quite right.

Yes it certainly does "say it all". Even when we add the early pension of £9,000 a year he will receive on top of that, the implication is clear. There is a two tier system and the perception is strong that military personnel are considered second class citizens.

Pte Cooper's awards themselves are not the issue. I happen to think they are not too bad. They could be more but they are not too bad. The real issue is that by awarding such high sums to civilians working in the MOD for relatively trivial things, a message is sent out loud and clear: Service personnel are not considered special by our society. The average member of the public may or may not care but they should because Service personnel on operations demonstrate a commitment to citizenship far and above that demonstrated by almost everyone else.

So, we really need to address this sort of imbalance and make a much clearer statement that Service personnel should and do occupy a special position in the affections and gratitude of the nation.

If anyone wants to contribute to injured Service personnel then take a look at the HELP for HEROES website.

Reminder of what is important

2008-03-18T15:22:00.012Z

Sorry if this next post does not say much but I just had to get something up to get rid of the unnerving picture below. So here is something more in keeping with what WitanSpeaker thinks is important:

Army Photographic Competition 2007
Best Overall Image (Sapper Ian Chapman)
CASEVAC

Is divorce ever pretty?

2008-03-17T22:57:00.003Z

Has there been a more unedifying spectacle in recent years, apart from the Diana inquest, than the McCartney divorce? So repulsive has this been that I can barely bring myself to comment but it cuts to the very core of the civility, legality and common sense of our society that to ignore it would be negligent.

Let us get a few facts straight. Originally, Heather McCartney asked for £125 million after four years of marriage. That is 31.25 million for every year of marriage. Yes, £31.25 million. How could she keep a straight face whilst asking for this sum in the first place and claiming that she is some sort of victim? It is beyond belief but I am afraid all too symptomatic of the more grasping and deluded elements of our society. It is simply the high end of our selfish rights obsessed culture

It is reported that Sir Paul originally offered £15.8 million but the final settlement agreed on £24.3 million, including cash and assets. This in itself is a staggering sum and would make many people feel sick, not particularly because of the amount but because of the conceit and greed of Heather McCartney to contest the original offer.

Most normal people would think the original offer was more than generous but not she apparently as she suggested an additional £35,000 per year just for their daughter was some sort of insult, condemning her to travel ‘B’ class. What planet is she on? It is not as if this is anything other than pocket money; school and nanny fees not being included in this figure. As this amount alone is well above the average salary of an entire family does she really think we will be sympathetic to her delusional ranting?

But why does this cut to the very core of our civility, legality and common sense? I am not bothered about what the McCartneys do with their marriage but the case is revealing nevertheless. It is revealing because what sort of woman rejects a divorce settlement of £15.8 million hoping for much more? What sort of legal system is it that tolerates such squabbles and where is the sense in parading this spectacle in our law courts that are only sullied and diminished because of it.

And finally, the biggest incredulity is that Heather McCartney seriously believes that we will place her in our sympathies and affections above a national institution like Sir Paul McCartney.

Are creed nations best?

2008-03-17T16:14:00.006Z

Christopher Caldwell writes a pretty good article on the difference between nations identified by their ‘creed’ and nations identified by their ‘people’. On the one hand we have nations that define themselves by what they believe and on the other hand we have nations that define themselves by who they are: ethnically, culturally and historically.

He then goes on to cite the ‘old Republics’ of France and the US as examples of creedal nations that ‘seem to have an easier time of it’. Both were arguably born from their experience of schism: the French between aristocracy and the people, and the US between Britain and American patriots. But, over time they have gained currency because both France and the US recognise that creed is all that is left if their different ‘peoples’ are to rally together and live in harmony.

And it is this lure that encourages us in Britain to turn our backs on our historical and cultural identity to adopt a creedal form of identity and loyalty that can attract indigenous Britons as much as recent immigrant groups.

But this is where the argument breaks down. France and the US are not examples we should wish to emulate because they are far from the harmonious nations the creedal advocates would have us believe. We need only look at the questions of race raised over the response of the US government to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the resurgence of race as an issue in the Democratic primary elections. France too, has some way to go before we can say their recent race riots were a mere aberration.

Towards the end he says that ‘Britain is already well on the way to becoming a fully creedal country’ but is not clear whether this is a good thing or not. If the example of the US and France is anything to go by, we should be extremely wary of substituting our cultural and historical form of identity for a creedal form that has yet to prove it can deliver the nirvana we all wish for.

Remove 40% tax band

2008-03-17T10:22:00.002Z

Whilst we talk of income tax rates, council tax levels, nil-rate bands, non-Dom levies and inheritance tax thresholds, we miss the requirement for simplification. I know progressive taxation is still in vogue and seen as a good in itself but has anyone else wondered why we maintain the 40% band?

It is probably this jump from 22% (20% from this April) more than anything else that most encourages higher rate tax payers to seek ways to avoid paying tax. I have still seen no evidence that refutes Laffer so why not get rid of that rate completely. It is not as if the extras money they keep will go to waste. With more wealth they are likely to do two things: spend more thus stimulating the economy; and save more thus helping the banks out with the credit crunch.

If we were worried that only the rich would benefit then why not increase the nil-rate band to take more low earners out of income tax completely and even raise the rate from 22% to something a little higher? This would also have the added benefit of removing the pension farce where higher rate payers get a higher contribution from the state. The likelihood that these higher earners will have a pension taxed at the higher rate makes this a great deal for them but just another source of annoyance for the rest.

Our private and national debt is obscene.

2008-03-16T19:48:00.007Z

Jeff Randall suggests that those addicted to easy credit have little choice but to go cold turkey. But, I am still left wondering which moron thought our indecent addiction to debt in the first place was a good thing. It still amazes me that we in the West have become so morally bankrupt that we think we can have something without actually paying for it and are so bereft of restraint that we refuse to save up any more.

This applies to both businesses like Northern Rock, with their absurd business plans, and the public hellbent on funding their latest binge on credit card debt. I know credit is central to the efficient functioning of a modern and complex economy but was it not usually restricted to those entering some business venture or other. Were loans not there to enable capital investment so companies could innovate, expand and thus make more money? And even with the advent of mass home ownership, it does not strike me as being too difficult to lend what a bank can properly finance.

I blame the government. Changes to the financial regulation system clearly have not worked. I thought Barings was meant to be the last really serious scandal in the UK. And 125% mortgages? Huh? And our current levels of national debt are meant to be in the region of £600 billion. What sort of example does that give? Student loans? We have lost the plot. But not all of us are so intoxicated with debt. I am still averse to going into debt and wonder if a return to the debtor prisons would not be a good thing - but the first ones admitted should be Gordon Brown and any chancellor who thinks it is OK for Britain to have such an obscene level of government debt. It is almost sickening.

Rugby shows the reality of life

2008-03-15T17:56:00.004Z

The spectacle of England playing Ireland in the Six Nations today serves as a perennial reminder of how life really is. It is competitive, with moments of bitter disappointment and great triumph and we all have to, at some point or other, subordinate our own wishes to that of the whole. So why is it that our elected politicians and the received wisdom of that political and commentary class try to cancel these natural facets of human existence out at every turn?

We seem to recognise that competition in business is necessary for the effective working of the market but we are reluctant to extend this principle education. Why do we assume that competition here will be any more of a disaster than the current system? We still churn out children who cannot read and write properly and our drop out rate from university is woeful for the simple fact that the schools are not good enough to supply graduate level candidates. Is it just a coincidence that the one part of the education sector that is truly successful is the independent and competitive sector?

Why is it that we accept failure at interview for a job but not failure at interview for a school place? Competition is not always a zero-sum gain so just because one child does not get into a particular school does not mean that the next school is not worthy of the name. We are all going to suffer failure at some point so we had better learn to deal with it. And to experience failure only makes success that much sweeter.

And why are we not allowed to subordinate our will to some greater institution or cause? We are now a litigious and rights obsessed society and we have forgotten how to act in concert with others for the greater good. Our politicians will try to tell us that civic pride and community spirit is what they are trying to build but every day they try, everyday the situation gets worse.

No, politicians should watch a game of rugby to see how real life operates and do their best to replicate it in the ideas they espouse.

NHS Staffing

2008-03-14T17:48:00.003Z

NHS staff levels are reported to be around the 1.3 million point. As there are about 60 million people in the UK that means there is one NHS employee for every 46 of us. That seems like a pretty generous ratio to me, if a little expensive. No wonder we keep plundering the developing world for medical staff.