We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
In the maelstrom of epic and terrible world events, prosaic, but nonetheless, important bits of news have a tendency to slip anonymously beneath the waves of sound and fury. Entirely understandable, I suppose, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t throw out a life-saver every now and then and haul one of the spluttering half-drowned items back in.
The man overboard in this case was an article which appeared in the Telegraph yesterday which covered a speech given by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf and during which he boldy opined that British Judges are not bound by decisions of the European Court in Strasbourg.
“”However, if we are satisfied that the Strasbourg jurisdiction is wrong we should be bold and either not follow or distinguish the Strasbourg decision. If that is what happens, we should take particular care to make clear why we have rejected the authority.”
This is significant because I cannot recall having heard any official or serious doubt cast upon universally-accepted position that British Courts are wholly beholden to Strasbourg. It is, if you will, a murmuring of dissent.
Of course, Lord Woolf stresses that conflict would be a rare thing:
“The Lord Chief Justice predicted that occasions when there would be a conflict between the House of Lords and Strasbourg were “likely to be few and far between”.
Maybe, maybe not. And, in his position, Lord Woolf could hardly suggest otherwise but the consequences of rejecting a Strasbourg ruling even once means that a precedent is set for further rejections and that kind of thing can so easily snowball to the point where, for all intents and purposes, Britain’s judiciary is independent again.
However, the champagne should be kept on ice for now. First of all, Lord Woolf is not a politician and cannot introduce legislation. He is the highest Judge in the land but this is not a ruling, merely an opinion and, as such, has no force of law. His colleagues in the House of Lords are free to reject his invitation but also may take him up on it and proceed accordingly.
Secondly, the entire address was couched in terms of the overriding concern for the rights and welfare of immigrants. This may have been due to the nature of the audience but could equally be the result of the obsession with ‘asylum-seekers’ that has taken a hold of our entire political and judicial class. Whilst it is not a damnable concern by any means, is it too much to ask that they consider the liberties and rights of the other 60 million people who live here? Still, one step at a time, I suppose.
Overall though, an address in which the country’s most senior Judge gives a green light to his fellow Judges to tell Europe to take a hike, must, on balance, be seen as positive.
Thanks to Scrofula we know that the British MP, George Galloway is still out there, way out there.
Galloway spoke last Friday at the American University of Beirut, urging students to take to the streets in massive demonstrations if they wanted to avoid a century in which they will see their resources stolen and continued Israeli domination in the region. He talked about a Western plan aimed at carving the Arab world into smaller and even weaker states.
He claimed that British officials are deciding whether Saudi Arabia will be two or three countries and if Sudan will be two states or not. Their intention, according to Galloway, is to create a holy Saudi Arabia for the Muslims and keep the other Saudi Arabia that has oil fields for themselves.
Nothing’s missed, we have it all here – Israel, oil, British imperialism – Brendan O’Neill should leap for joy… I wonder whether Mr Galloway reads Spiked (former Living Marxism).
Galloway told the audience that people in Britain have done their bit by organising protests against a war on Iraq. But he said it is time for Arabs to demonstrate that they can threaten interests of the West in the region.
I led the biggest demonstration in the history of Britain two weeks ago, half a million people marched through the streets of London under the slogan ‘Justice for Palestine and no war in Iraq’
Apart from confusing two very different demonstrations and blatantly lying about importance and size of the anti-war one, what the hell is going on here?! How can a representative of the British public, a member of the nation’s legislature, incite violence (as in inviting ‘demonstration of a threat to insterests of the West in the region’) against his own country? This used to be called treason, fair and square, and George Galloway is guilty of it many times over. If democracy has any spine, why is he running around spewing such non-sense as an elected member of the Parliament? Do the people who voted for him agree with his treason? → Continue reading: What’s the punishment for treason nowadays?!
I remember seeing an American-made TV movie thriller a few years ago where a young female babysitter, alone in a big house, receives threatening phonecalls from a psychotic killer. She calls the police who advise here to stay calm while they trace the origin of the calls. Meanwhile the abusive phonecalls from the killer grow more deranged and fenzied. Terrified out of her wits, she then receives a call back from the police telling her to get out of the house: they’ve traced the call and it’s coming from an upstairs bedroom!
Well, we’re all young female babysitters now; a transformation formally recognised by the Telegraph:
“Terrotist recruitment and fundraising by Islamic militants centred on a London mosque were ignored for years by the British security services, a former Special Branch informant claimed yesterday.”
Perhaps the spooks were on leave or something.
“While his British handlers preferred to keep a watching brief on the mosque, where the imam is the radical cleric Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Masri, the French became increasingly infuriated.
French counter-terrorism experts refer to the capital as “Londonistan” because of the number of wanted extremists who have sought and found safe haven there.”
We actually managed to infuriate the French through lack of action. Surely a world first?
“”The French felt British law was very, very soft on these people. Britain was looking at Irish terrorists; it couldn’t see the threat. It gave these people flats, benefits, passports, citizenship.”
That’s a relief. For a minute I was worried that some of their needs were not being fully catered for. Anything else required? Satellite TV? Chauffeur-driven limousine? Jacuzzi? Comfort girls?
As I type, Detectives from Scotland Yard are jetting off to Bali to look for terrorists. One wonders what, precisely, has been stopping them from taking a bus to Finsbury Park? And if any non-Britons are mystified as to how this bureacratic indifference on the home front squares with Tony Blair’s (quite genuine, I believe) hawkishness in the War on Terror, all I can say is, join the club.
Whatever the explanation (assuming there is one at all), we find ourselves in the tangled undergrowth of the most dangerous possible combination of tactics in response to Islamic terrorism: aggressive foreign policy and an inept domestic policy.
Those phonecalls are getting increasingly threatening. I sincerely hope we don’t all end up running from the house screaming.
After periodic, and if the truth be known, inevitable paedophile scandals in Britain of the sort that occurs in every school system in the world, checks on the backgrounds of teachers have been stepped up and made more rigorous. No problem there as if someone has a history of paedophile activities, it is entirely reasonable that a potential educational employer should want to discover that.
But then why does the state insist that as part of this information gathering process, that the prospective teacher reveals their banking details and how to access their secure password to get at their financial details?
It is because the Panopticon state regards privacy as in and of itself a cause for suspicion.
I suppose it is only to be expected that Iain Duncan Smith would round off the Conservative Conference in Bournemouth with a triumphal assertion that the ‘the Tories are back’. The poor man could hardly do otherwise having presided over a week of fractious in-fighting, broody soul-searching and insurrectionary plots to topple him as leader. He just had to try to end things on an upbeat note and stamp his authority.
But is he right? Like Perry, I think that the answer is ‘no’ and, furthermore, I feel that the situation is unlikely to be improved by any well-spun policy initiatives. The problem for the Conservatives was, in fact, highlighted this last week by their Chairman, Theresa May when she exhorted the assembled party faithful to work to shed their ‘nasty image’. Therein lies the crux of the problem: nobody likes the Conservative because they are popularly seen as being ‘nasty’ and ‘uncaring’, i.e. it is believed that, once in power, they will cut taxes, curtail generous welfare handouts, privatise healthcare and education and stop creating sinecure jobs in the public sector for the competence-challenged.
Now there’s a sublime irony here because, in the event that the Tories ever did ascend the throne again, they are highly unlikely to do any of those things. For sure, about half of the party consists of people who would very much like to do those things but the other half consists of people who would rather stick their genitals in a food blender and press the ‘On’ button before they rocked any boats whatosever, and it’s the latter half that usually wins (as well as being the half that toppled Mrs.T). → Continue reading: Conservatives up the creek
Whither the Tories as a low-tax party? Well, I came across this piece of defeatism by Danny Finkelstein, who was once an adviser to former Prime Minister John “bonker” Major.
Essentially, Finkelstein writes that the Conservatives should stop talking at all about tax cuts since it would give them nil public credibility in arguing for reform of the public services.
“There have been times when tax cuts have been a sure-fire election winner and such a time will undoubtedly come again. Yet in deciding to put so much emphasis on public services, the Tories have decided that the next election is not such a time. for if public services are to come first, something must come second.”
Firstly, I was not aware that any senior Tory, unless under the influence of booze, has made a principled and coherent argument for cutting taxes in the last five years. In fact, it seems this previously major feature of what passes for Tory thinking has fallen completely off the radar. More’s the pity.
Secondly, the supply side argument. Surely Finkelstein and others should have grasped the point that most major governments, including the present British one, set taxes at rates which actually means they raise less revenue than otherwise would be the case due to the blight on incentives high taxes cause. While I don’t expect every pundit to have heard of the Laffer Curve it would be nice to think that the enormous success of Ronald Reagan’s and Margaret Thatcher’s tax cut measures would have left some kind of mark. Clearly some reminders are needed.
Increases in public spending or holding spending where it is has not proven to work in delivering good health or education, as the shambolic state of Britain’s socialised system of health care proves. Many of the problems have little to do with money, more with ideology. Finkelstein’s argument is predicated on the idea that reform necessarily will cost as much, if not more, than what is being spent at the moment. That is questionable, to say the least.
And finally, by accepting the notion that one cannot cut taxes while sorting out health, education, etc, the Tories would be allowing the Labour government to dictate the very terms of the debate. That is a recipe for instant failure. That is why Labour-leaning commentators anxious to shaft the Tories urge it as the Tories’ only hope for salvation. Such folk are false friends and should be shunned.
And Mr Finkelstein should recall that although his domestic agenda is now either in tatters or in cold storage, one reason why George W. Bush made it to the White House was on account of tax cuts.
Overheard on Radio 4 this morning – a plan by Westminster Council to fine the homeless who sleep in the ‘tourist sensitive’ areas around Westminster. What a marvellous idea, fine the homeless, like they have the £500 ($750 US) proposed fine! Why don’t they just admit they want to lock them up – and cut out the court admin of chasing the fine? The state is not your friend, whether you are rich or poor…
Also, why is David Trimble really so upset with Sinn Fein spying on the Northern Ireland Assembly? Yes, there are security implications given their ‘links’ to the IRA but surely it couldn’t have come as a surprise? Is he just making political capital out of his opponents being caught with their listening devices out? Is he covering his embarrassment that his party wasn’t doing it? Or is he protesting too much to cover up the fact that he was doing the same thing?
Finally, a policeman’s take on the “after the war in Iraq” question (from a trusted source close to the police, i.e., a policeman I know):
“Iraq’s population is a combination of three different and ethnically varied races who hate one another with a vengeance. They hate us [the West] even more than each other and may be unwilling and unable to support the west should a strike occur. However, if intervention is necessary and the aftermath is about putting together a new and effective ‘junta’, then there might be a chance. If not, it will be a hell of a hole to police.”
Graham Turner asks in an article in the Telegraph Can the Conservative Party recover?… and of course the answer I would give is no. It is fascinating to watch the Tory Party Conference. I have not enjoyed myself as much since I last saw Dawn of the Dead.
The new Tory manifesto is starting
to take shape nicely
Iain Duncan Smith continues to amaze me with his triviality and casual insults to potential supporters. The latest thigh slappingly funny remark is that he dislikes the ‘doggerel’ found in Roman Catholic Masses. Not in and of itself a momentous observation, but then please keep in mind that this is the man who would presumably like Catholics in Britain to vote for him so that he can be the one plundering private assets instead of those nasty labour people.
Did anyone hear front bench advocacy for
genuine capitalist solutions and free trade over
all the blather about ‘public services’ being paramount?
And when IDS finally implodes, or more likely people just forget his name, it seems that chubby paleo-statist Kenneth Clark still hankers after party leadership so he can revive the glories of the Ted Heath era…
Now this is almost better that Evil Dead…
Kenneth Clark’s supporters were much in
evidence this year
 Update: I have now sobered up and I would like to apologise to all of our readers who happen to be undead… in no way was I implying all zombies are members of the Conservative Party. 
Imagine you want to set up a business. Let’s say it’s a software consultancy. And let’s also assume that you require some capital funding to get you started. You decide to approach a variety of sources from wealthy private investors to banks to venture capitalists and in order to impress them you draw up a Business Plan.
Only, there is no Business Plan because you are forbidden from charging your customers. Yes, that’s right, you are obliged to give away your valuable time and expertise for free. Which means you are not a business, you are a charity. No business, no Business Plan.
Insane? Bizarre? Economically illiterate? Intellectually retarded? Yes, yes, yes and yes.
And that probably explains why it has been adopted by the British Conservative Party as their big, bold, brand new idea for the National Health Service:
“During the health debate, Dr Fox will say that hospitals would be able to raise cash however they wanted and from whoever they wanted.
They will, however, be barred from charging patients for treatment”.
I am so resigned to this kind of stupidity that I can no longer bring myself to be outraged about it.
How marvelous that state hospitals will be able to go to anyone for their investment; only wihtout being able to offer a return, no investor will touch them and they will be forced to go back, cap-in-hand, to HM Government (and that means us) and we’re right back where we started. In other words, the Conservatives are opting for ‘no-change’.
Despite endless tampering, tinkering, revamps, updates, initiatives, policy changes, shifts in emphasis, new approaches, fresh ideas, radical thinking, more funding, down-to-earth measures, sensible guidelines, new directions, even more funding and more wishful thinking than you can point a stick at, Britain’s unworkable Soviet-model health care system still won’t work.
But coming to terms with that is a pain barrier that nobody is willing to cross.
They’ve never caught a rabbit, but they’re eagerly sniffing around for some children to harvest.
According to these Tranzi bloodsuckers, HM Government has not been sufficiently zealous in nationalising children in order to better protect them from their venal, barbaric and untrustworthy parents.
“Every one of the very large number of child deaths caused by violence and neglect in the UK starts with a smack, according to Lady Walmsley.”
‘Very large number’!!??? How many is that exactly? 43,598? 2 million? Half a billion? Don’t they realise that every one of the very large number of very bad laws starts with a completely fabricated statistic? Don’t smack me on the bottom, Lady Walmsley, just kiss my arse.
The real reason HM Government won’t enact these stupid laws is because they know that there is widespread public opposition to them; thus proving that it is not the world which is going mad, just the people who think they run it. And the people who think they run it have an agenda which necessitates the eradication of the family as an impediment to the building of New Global Man.
I’m not as angry as I should be about this because I actually think that the UN is lighting its own way to dusty death. I am reminded of that story of a meek little housewife who turned into a rage-beast and lifted up a truck to save her trapped child. It is probably nothing more than an urban legend but even if it is, it serves a useful function for it is an expression of the universal folk-knowledge about the lengths a parent will go to to protect to their children.
The UN will now have made itself that little bit less popular in Britain and, as their agenda creeps forward, the mask of purported benevolence will begin to slip, the sinister purpose will be seen for what it is and little folk the world over will turn on them like Viking beserkers.
As for me, I have a little disposable capital that I might just invest in the double-headed axe business. After all, the UN, they ain’t no friends of mine.
Or so says leading New Labour talking head and failed Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Mandelson.
He says one of Europe’s “huge challenges” in the next couple of years includes “rebuilding the Atlantic alliance”. Well this is indeed a ‘European’ problem, but not a British problem. British relations with the United States and Canada are just fine, thanks… it is the governments of France and Germany which have problems with anti-Americanism at the highest levels.
At least I agree with the dismal Mandelson on one point: the need for ‘British Leadership’ in Europe. Let the nations of Europe follow Britain as it walks briskly for the door marked EXIT.
Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, has delivered a rather splendid kick in the orbs to the pro-€uro/anti-sterling campaign. Greenspan said whilst speaking in the City of London (London’s powerful financial district):
The City of London is thriving outside the eurozone and has not suffered from Britain’s decision not to join the single currency in the first wave […] and was a sterling place to do business. London has stayed on top in the provision of financial services despite the euro…
Now I am no fan of the whole concept of central banking (and hence no fan of central bankers) but the fact is it would be bonkers to deny that Alan Greenspan is probably, hell, certainly, the most influential voice on the subject of economic affairs alive in the world today. His remarks are therefore going to cause some gnashing of teeth in certain circles, which has to be a good thing, as the pro-€uro campaign is predicated upon turning the abolition of sterling from a constitutional issue into a purely practical economic issue… and thus having Greenspan point out that Britain is managing just fine outside the eurozone is not what Brussels’ fifth column in Britain want to see splashed across UK newspapers.
Ah, but you should have seen the size of the one that got away. It was this big I tell you!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Recent Comments