March Reception…

On Thursday 1st March 2007, BUCF will be hosting a drinks reception at the Mailbox, Central Birmingham. MPs and local Conservative representatives will be present, and we hope to see as many Conservative Future members there as possible. Tickets are now available – please contact Joseph Brewer (jxb542@bham.ac.uk) . Relevant contact information is displayed on the Future Events Page along with additional information.  Please book your tickets as soon as possible.

After 10 years of Gordon Brown…

Ten years into Gordon Brown’s long tenure as Chancellor and we are beginning to see the economic affect of his policies. The Financial Times tells us that 87 of Britain’s top executives believe that the UK has become a less attractive place to do business. They blame high corporate tax and aggressive tax authorities.

The FT reports that nineteen companies have moved their operations overseas in the last two years, and another five say they will move their headquarters in the near future. To give an idea of the savings, if HSBC was to move headquarters abroad they could shave up to £400 million off their annual tax bill. Two Lloyd’s insurers, Hiscox and Omega, plan to move to Bermuda, halving their tax bill. Companies that have already relocated include Colt Telecom who have escaped to Luxemburg, Shell to the Netherlands, and Experian to Dublin.

Gordon Brown has always claimed to be a pro-business Chancellor. Looks like it.  

Blix opposes Trident…

First we had the Catholic Bishop and now it’s the weapons inspector. The Independent reports that Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector, is to renew hostilities with Tony Blair, accusing him of double standards while on the one hand asking for Iran to stop it’s nuclear weapons programme and on the other pressing ahead with the renewal of the UK’s Trident. These may be double standards, but I’m afraid there is little alternative. The idea that both the Bishop and now Hans Blix appear to have, is that by disarming ourselves we would set an example for others to follow. The flaw however, is that others may choose not to follow. This has always been the problem with universal disarmament. While the technology exists there will always be a country that will exploit it. It is incredibly unlikely that if the UK decommissions it’s nuclear weapons, Iran will also bring an end to their own plans. So I think double standards may have to prevail.

On This day…

27th November 1990

John Major replaces Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister. He beats off contenders Douglas Hurd and Michael Hesseltine for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

Watch BBC news clip here.

Introducing Deirdre Alden PPC

Deirdre Alden
Conservative Councillor for Edgbaston & Parliamentary Candidate

I’m Deirdre Alden, the Conservative Parliamentary Spokesman for the Birmingham Edgbaston Constituency. I fought the seat last time and halved the majority, bringing it down from 4,698 to 2,349. I was re-selected in January 2006 under the fast-track scheme. Born in Buckinghamshire, I came to Edgbaston at the age of 18 as a student – not at Birmingham University, but at the drama school, which in those days was in Church Road, Edgbaston – just along from the University halls of residence. I met my future husband during the time I was a student here and decided to stay.

The Edgbaston Constituency comprises four wards – Bartley Green, Edgbaston, Harborne and Quinton. The Conservatives currently hold 11 of the 12 Council seats in the constituency. I am one of the Councillors for Edgbaston ward. My husband John is a Councillor for Harborne Ward, where we live. John and I have two grown up sons. The youngest, Robert, was at Birmingham University between 2001-2005. He became Birmingham’s youngest current Councillor (aged 23) in May 2006, representing a ward in the north of the city.

The Conservative Party is currently working hard to ensure more women are elected to Parliament in the future. However Edgbaston is unique in that it has had a woman MP continuously since 1953. For the vast majority of that time (1953-1997) it was a Conservative woman MP who represented Edgbaston – which is what I intend it to be again after the next General Election.

Please feel free to leave comments.
Deirdre also blogs here

The day we met ken Clarke…

 

Yesterday, Ken Clarke visited the University to consult students on the state of democracy in the UK. It was a very interesting session with many useful points put forward, which Ken was happy to respond to. While Ken joked that he was having more of a conversation with himself, everyone seemed quite happy to listen. But then, no one expected anything less than a good performance. Very good stuff. Myself and Joseph, Treasurer and Chairman, managed to grab this photo with Ken on his way to the station.

Redbrick Article on Boris, #1

We were today again mentioned in Redbrick, in relation to our Boris Johnson event.  The article, on page 2, places negative emphasis on the fact that the event is for members only.

The world’s gone mad!

The Daily Express, never one resist a dig at money-spinning councils, reports that Nottingham County Council will fine residents £100 if the wrong rubbish is found in their recycling bins. Amongst the offending items of rubbish include pizza left in pizza boxes and cling film and foil left on rolls. This will mean people having to meticulously separate their rubbish. Some pretty irate residents have asked what they are meant to do if some kids or a hostile neighbour contaminates their carefully organised bins? One shop owner sees no option but to stand guard over his bins until the refuse collectors turn up. Besides, many doubt that the scheme is enforceable, given the scale of the task.

I’ve blogged about Green charges before, and have agreed with them, providing they are well thought out. However, this is about the best example of a badly thought out charge. It is entirely counter-productive. Firstly, as some residents have commented, it puts them off recycling altogether. While residents agree in principle with recycling, they feel that the council are exploiting it to make money. At a time when recycling needs to be encouraged, it is bad if the public start to feel that their local councils are imposing charges for their own financial gain rather than for the environment. And secondly it will lead to fly-tipping, with some members of the public throwing their rubbish anywhere else but in their own bins. Therefore, it encourages the wrong behaviour. In future it is important that if green charges are to work, the likely behaviour of individuals in response is well predicted. If not, we can expect to see more counter-productive measures.

The reality and Nuclear Weapons…

The BBC tells us that Catholic Bishops from across England and Wales have urged the Government to oppose the renewal of Tridant, the UK’s independent nuclear capability. Crispian Hollis, Bishop of Portsmouth, makes three arguments. The first is that if the UK replaces Trident it will undermine the goal of international disarmament. Secondly, he questions if nuclear weapons are actually a deterrent given the level of violence around the world. And thirdly, he adds that nuclear weapons could never be used because they are “uniquely destructive”. This is probably the most confused view of world affairs I’ve ever heard.

Firstly, we have to accept that Nuclear technology is here to stay. Once a new technology has been introduced it can’t be reversed. Therefore, there will always be countries who will try to develop nuclear weapons in an attempt to strengthen their hand. International Disarmament is therefore a fallacy. While some countries, like the United States and Russia, might reduce their arsenal to an extent, the goal of complete disarmament is a false one.

Secondly, the Bishop seems to suggest that conflicts around the world somehow disprove the concept of Nuclear deterrent. This is wrong. Nuclear deterrent works between two countries who possess nuclear weapons. The assurance of Mutual Destruction is enough to make them back away from conflict. This was the case during the Cold War, and the same is true of India and Pakistan in their dispute over Kashmir. In fact where there is violence, it is where both sides or one of them do not possess nuclear weapons.

Thirdly, the Bishop claims that in any case, Nuclear Weapons could never be used because they are ‘uniquely destructive’. Well yes, this is the whole point. It is the potential devastation that makes the Nuclear deterrent work. In theory at least, there could be a disastrous nuclear exchange. However it is because of this threat, that in practise, it is highly unlikely the weapons will ever be used. However, this is not an argument for scrapping our deterrent. On the contrary, it is an argument for maintaining it.

One last point I would add, is that you can never predict the future. Although there are a number of facts we should bear in mind. One; there are more nuclear powers than ever before with the capability to launch a nuclear attack on Britain or our foreign interests. Two; the technology is in place and can’t be reversed, in fact if anything it may well become easier to replicate. And third; there will be growing demand in so called ‘Rogue States’ to acquire weapons in order to immune themselves from International military intervention. These facts make it a very bad time for the UK to even consider not replacing her nuclear deterrent.

On This Day…

 

On this day sixteen years ago Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s first female Prime Minister, resigned after a eleven and a half years in office, making her the longest serving Prime Minister for 150 years. Her departure marked the end of a dynamic and radical period in British and world history. By 1990 the British economy had been transformed, shifting the political consensus to the right and paving the way for the rise of New Labour. Internationally, Eastern Europe was liberated and the Soviet Union was brought to an end. However, tensions over her reactionary stance on Europe and disquiet about the unpopular poll tax, led to a leadership ballot. Although she obtained a majority it wasn’t enough to avoid a second ballot which her collegues advised her she would lose. Therefore, she decided to resign and support John Major in the second ballot.

Margaret Thatcher left the House of Commons in 1992 and was made a Baroness in 1993. The Downing Street Years and The Path to Power, her two major biographies, were published the same year, followed by a third book Statecraft in 2001. She maintains her seat in the House of Lords today. Alan Clark’s Diary In Power, gives an intimate description of the days building up to the resignation. This was his diary entry on the 22nd… 

Alan Clark Diaries, 22nd November 1990….

“Very early this morning the phone rang. It was Tristan’ ‘She’s Going.’

Later, House of Commons…

“I didn’t think I could bear it, but curiosity drew me into the Chamber for the Lady’s last performance… I watched and listened from behind the chair, then from the bar of the House. She was brilliant. Humerous, self-depricating, swift and deadly in her argument and in her riposte. Even Dennis Skinner, her oldest adversary was feeding her lines; and at one point Michael Carttiss shouted, ‘You could wipe the floor with the lot of ‘em.’ Too bloody true.”

   

Events, dear boy, events….

When Harold MacMillan was asked what worried him, he replied “Events, dear boy, events.”

Well events don’t worry us. We have Pre-Boris Drinks this evening in Joe’s Bar from 7:30 onwards. This will be an opportunity for current members to come and have a drink (or two) together, but also for any prospective members to come and join before the Boris visit next Friday. Hope to see as many of you there as physically possible. You should be able to spot us, most likely to be at the far end of the bar as you walk in. 

The other event this coming Friday is Ken Clarke’s lecture on Democracy at the Business School. This is not a BUCF event, but it is free for those who want to attend. The relevant contact details are advertised in the current addition of RedBrick. To book places you must phone as soon as you can.

A Quagmire With No Exit Strategy

Mike O’Rourke
Guest Blogger

Well, we nearly heard that word this weekend right from the PM’s lips: “disaster”. There are many words one may use regarding this government and reflected in policy since they swept to power in 1997- calamitous, arrogant, interfering, ignorant, domineering to name a just a few. However, disaster is a strong adjective to use. Yet when it comes to this government’s foreign policy then one has no choice.

It is a shame that it has took three and a half years for the PM to realise that you cannot enter a war without a defined strategy. It is was foolish to be allowed to be sucked into the American way of doing it. “Right guys lets get in there and sort it out when we’re in”. Even in Vietnam though, there was a clear goal for the American forces. I don’t quite know what the goal is in Iraq or Afghanistan. Now, I think it is to simply “stop those bad people. whoever they are”. The war to which many supported in 2003 has turned into a bloody quagmire. Troops are fighting without proper equipment, on little food and for what objectives? Our forces are demoralised and face intolerable threats from insurgents. Our forces are heroes but they are being treated as if they are toy soldiers that children (Allied leaders) are playing around with. Problem is this is real life and our troops are dying.

This is the crux of the issue. The government’s mishandling of the aftermath to invasion is clear as water. Their lack of a plan has put our troops in more danger. The government took us into a war without having any idea when exactly the forces would leave. “When the job is done is too empty to be called a policy. As someone who supported the war in 2003, I think the next step must be a full Commons debate on the war, and now. When the PM’s own friends called his policies “moral imperialism” ( a real kick in the backside from the ultra-loyal Margaret Hodge) then the PM has questions to answer.

Mike O’Rourke was Chairman of BUCF 2005/06

A Disaster? Quite

David Frost asked Tony Blair yesterday if Iraq had been a disaster? Blair said “It has…”, before going on. Though as I thought, he was “simply acknowledging the question in a polite way before going on to explain his view”. I’m glad Downing Street explained that to us, because if he had meant what he said then he’d probably be admitting the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez.

But then, this is probably what it is. Blair argues that somehow the difficulties that Iraq faces are nothing to do with the planning, but rather down to efforts by terrorists to divide the country. This, however, is only half right. Terrorists are indeed trying to undermine Allied efforts, but I can identify off the top of my head a number of areas where we should have planned things differently. I would say, lack of troops, lack of international support, lack of investment, lack of diplomacy, and a general lack of foresight.

So it’s Brown then

Even Tony Blair now accepts that Gordon Brown will become the next Labour leader, not least because all the possible challengers have said they will not stand, presumably to get a good job under Gordon. Everyone, that is, except John Reid, who is now seen as the only possible effective challenger. He has yet to rule out absolutely the possibility of his standing against Brown.

This whole saga throws up a number of interesting questions. One is the electorate’s response to a Prime Minister who will not only not have been chosen by the country, but not even by his party.

Another is the question of who will be Brown’s Chancellor. Assuming he will not choose the current favourite, Alistair Darling, for political reasons (Scot), the favourite is Ed Balls who has only been in the House since 2005, but who has been Brown’s economic advisor for many years.

If Brown gets a coronation, and selects Darling as his Chancellor, this will throw up the West Lothian question again, but with louder voices, and heighten resentment against this government. That can only been good for the Conservatives.

BUCF and City Branch… United through common purpose

Thursday evening saw the City Branch’s monthly drinks social, held at Utopia Bar, on Church Street. As always, it was an enjoyable event, with a plentiful supply of interesting conversation and laughter.

For those of you not familiar, the City Branch is an organisation in Birmingham which, in its own words, has a ‘city-wide coverage with a city centre focus’. It acts as a meeting place for Conservatives in (and from outside) the area, and assists local constituencies in various ways.

Further, the City Branch is keen to collbaborate more closely with Birmingham University Conservative Future, and as Vice-Chairman of the latter, I can only welcome such a proposal, as a way of projecting our own status around the City.

Scrap Catchment Areas?

The BBC tells us that the Co-Chair of the Public Services Group, Baroness Perry, has proposed breaking up school catchment areas. She argues that breaking up catchment areas is an essential part of giving children the opportunity to go to a good school. I tend to agree.

Applying Free Market principles to Education has always seemed wholly beneficial to me. Fostering healthy competition between schools that are independently managed, seems a good way to ensure that children get to good schools. One of the pre-requisites of this is the abolition of the catchment area, which is an impossible obstacle in the way of a functioning free market in Education. Although, it would be wrong to say that a free market doesn’t exist at all. It does, but requires parents to move house. This is firstly a ridiculous state of affairs, people shouldn’t have to go to such lengths to get their children into decent schools, and secondly it’s unfair on everyone else. Removing Catchment areas would firstly allow parents to apply to whatever school they choose, while secondly requiring good schools to do more of what they do well, and thirdly forcing failing schools to up their game or face closure. The abolition of the catchment area is not the only step, but it’s one step towards a free market in education.

Birmingham Congestion Charge

Demands are growing for the introduction of Road Charging in Birmingham, according to the Birmingham Post. The latest push follows regional transport statistics published by the Department for Transport. They show that employees in Birmingham take 26 minutes on average to get to work, one of the longest journey times in the UK. Currently, congestion is measured in the West Midlands at 6,000 cars per kilometre of road per day, a higher traffic density than anywhere else outside London.

As such the West Midlands has been urged to take a lead and consider various forms of road charging. A report published in September by West Midlands Local Authorities, suggested a £4 charge a day to travel into Central Birmingham. My main concerns with this type of road charging is that firstly, it’s a regressive tax, and second it could well have the effect of increasing congestion immediately outside the zone. Furthermore, as Birmingham Chamber of Commerce has raised, the case is yet to be proven that road charging is economically beneficial. The only practical example we have in the UK is the London Congestion Charge and here the economic consequences are mixed. While the charge is undoubtedly reducing journey times and therefore reducing the economic cost of congestion, it is possible that the fall in visitors to central London is offsetting any gains.

Alternatively, of course, the authorities could upgrade the road network, remove bottlenecks and invest in Public Transport.

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman, the economist, died last night at the age of 94. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics in 1976, and is most famous for Monetarism. Friedman was also a major advocate of free market economics and his approach became known as the Chicago School. From Chicago, Friedman spearheaded the intellectual case for free market reform, and did more than most to build the intellectual foundations of the New Right in the 70s.  The economic policies of the Thatcher and Reagan Governments were heavily influenced by Friedman, and from here they spread to other countries, helping to shift the political economy of the world towards greater free markets.  Last night Lady Thatcher paid tribute to the economist, calling him an “intellectual freedom fighter”, adding that “he revived the economics of liberty when it had been all but forgotten”.

The world has not only lost a great economist, but also a great Libertarian.

Boris Events…

Well, it’s nearly time. On December the 1st, Boris Johnson will be visiting the University and meeting CF members. Now, it is for members only so if you haven’t already signed up and you are interested in meeting Boris then you will need to do so. We have therefore arranged Pre-Boris Drinks in Joe’s Bar for members and prospective members alike where membership forms will be availbable. It is currently £3 to sign-up.

Pre Boris Drinks – Tuesday 21st November 2006 – Joe’s Bar 7:30pm

We hope to see as many of you as possible in Joe’s and of course welcome prospective members. Both the Pre-Boris drinks and the Boris visit are loaded on to the Future Events page. Any queries please contact us at conservative@bugs.bham.ac.uk

Modern Birmingham…

 

Thatcherism changed everything. According to the historian Francis Beckett, who ranked Thatcher as the Greatest Prime Minister, one society was replaced with another . And Birmingham didn’t escape the changes. England’s second city has boomed over the past twenty years or so. Admittedly a lot of this was down to the foresight of Birmingham Council, who stumped up the money in the early 1970s to build the National Exhibition Centre, but a lot was down to the legislative reforms of the last Conservative Governments.

Brindley Place was probably the first post Thatcherite development. Before, Gas Street Basin epitomised industrial decline. It was a wasteland that time had forgot. Now, the contrast could hardly be greater. It is true that if you walk for ten minutes beyond Brindley Place you bump into the old Birmingham of inner city decline, but for about 2 square miles Birmingham has an area that it can be justly proud of. However, the development hasn’t stopped at Brindley place, it in fact triggered a multiplier effect paving the way for continued development. I remember when you could walk about 100 yards past Brindley place and find yourself in the back end of nowhere. Now, if I walk the same distance I get to the Mailbox, and soon The Cube. You can walk further round to the new Bull Ring, and within the next ten years you’ll be able to venture down East Side’s continental boulevards flanked by restaurants and bars.

It was the last Conservative Government that set the framework for city regeneration to take place. Amongst others, the most important act was probably Action for Cities in 1988. It proposed setting up regional development agencies. These agencies were meant to bring together both public and private organisations to encourage development. £4000 million was put forward in the first few years of the project, and the investment continued after the introduction of the City Challenge Act in the early 1990’s. In addition, Enterprise Zones were introduced with lower rates of tax and relaxed planning laws, leading, in Birmingham, to the development of a strong commercial centre based around Colmore row. This combination has been described as the most significant attack on urban decay, and much of it has been carried forward by the present Government, to their credit.

So next time you’re in Brindley place tucking into some French cuisine or supping a cappuccino, just remember where it all started…

It’s all about image…

 

I said to a fellow Tory in the week that you shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover. He said I was wrong, and that if people can’t be bothered to create an attractive cover, then they should expect to be judged badly. And, after some consideration, I think he has a point.

All the Great leaders understood the importance of image. Elizabeth I knew all about image, so did Gladstone, Disraeli, Churchill, and so does Margaret Thatcher. While they were all intelligent and highly able individuals, they understood that in politics, this was not what they would be judged on. Churchill was witty and liked a drink, Harold Wilson was a dad-like figure, and both men played up their characteristics. In fact I feel I should talk a bit more about Churchill. He was a master self-publicist and went to great lengths to secure not just a temporary image, but one that would last generations. He wrote an enormous, 6 volume account of the Second World War, in which he comes out favourably. In doing so he determined the frame of historical debate, and is now almost completely regarded as being right all along. He once admitted that after each decision he made in Government he sat back and said it would now be left to history to decide whether it was the right decision, adding, “but remember, I shall be one of the Historians”.

In an age of increased media, Margaret Thatcher must have the most powerful image; the handbag, pearls and power suits. She learnt how to control the media and use it to her considerable advantage. If you want to know about the importance of image, look no further than Ken Clarke; the hush puppies, the grey suit, cigars, beer and Jazz. In fact ask Boris Johnson. All these notables understood or understand that image is not just important, but vital. Although it is true that image is no good on it’s own, it is nevertheless an essential weapon in the Statesman’s armoury. And it’s not like this is anything new. You ask any medieval monarch, and if you could, they would talk your ear off about the importance of image, and how they either failed or succeeded in projecting a good imagine, and then how they went on to fail or succeed as monarchs.

David Cameron is no different. In opposition he is creating an image that will convince people he is worthy of the top job. Many opposition leaders have failed at this hurdle. Ted Heath lost three out of four elections probably because he didn’t have the image. Neil Kinnock couldn’t get it quite right, and William Hague didn’t get it right at all. Although, at least with Hague there was an attempt to create an image; the baseball cap, 14 pints and so on, whereas it seems Ian Duncan Smith was given up as a lost cause.

The conclusion: If you want to go into politics you might want to give your image a thought.

Peel ‘punches’ above his weight

This weekend I got my Punch Cartoons back from the framers. The first was sketched in the early 1840s, and the second in 1850. I was hoping to add some photos of them on my wall, but I’m having major tech difficulties, so a picture of the man himself will have to do. Anyhow, the first cartoon features the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, as a toddler being pulled along by Richard Cobden the advocate of Free Trade and founder of the Free Trade Lobby Group, The Anti Corn Law League. The Corn Laws as a tariff on imported agricultural produce benefited English landowners, and the Conservative Party was still mostly made up of rural MPs dependant on land owners for votes. So, any attempt to repeal the Corn Laws was a no-go area for Conservative leaders, hence the cartoon where Peel is unable to keep up with Cobden as he strides down the free trade path. But Peel, persuaded by the arguments of Cobden came to the conclusion that the tariffs were unjust, protecting British agriculture from cheaper imports at a time when food was scarce and prices high. Peel risked everything for Corn Law repeal including the Conservative Party and his own political career. He got his way, and the Corn Laws were repealed, but he relied on the support of the opposition, and on the same day his party defeated him on the Irish Amendment Bill.

Peel was left with no choice but to resign. Deeply humiliated and unable to forgive his party, Peel retreated into the political wilderness. He was finished, but so was Protectionism. Punch magazine’s monument to Peel features Peel looking over a working class family in front of a mountain of cheap bread. But, in truth, Peel’s free market reforms meant much more than this. They led to an economic golden age that would last until the mid 1870s. In my view he is the Greatest Conservative leader, with the exception of Margaret Thatcher of course, but more on her later.

Saddam’s Execution

I attribute the ‘event-to-post’ delay in this instance, to two things: First, not knowing how to use this site! And second, to a period of reflection over the issue. Anyhow…
As i am sure you will be aware, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to execution, on November 5th, for numerous crimes against humanity. I take issue with this, on three levels:

1. Political – Not a day goes by without Bush (or Blair) insisting upon the need to “spread peace and democracy” throughout our world. Surely, if we’re going to convince the people of Iraq, and the wider Middle East, of such sentiments – liberal democracy etc – then demonstrating a penal system that does not condone such barbarism as execution, would be a good place to start. Am i wrong? Further, from a politically selfish point-of-view, both the US and Britain (and liberal democracy per se) would benefit by creating a space between themselves, and the rogue states and terrorist groups of the world. That is, to sing from the hymn sheet that reads ‘no person, group, or state ever has the right to extinguish life.
2. Equality and fairness – Okay, attempting to argue that Saddam should be treated fairly, is risky, i acknowledge that. All the same… Slobodan Milosevic, a man of arguable greater evil, stood trial in the Hague. Why is this important? The Hague does not recognise execution as an option for punishment, thus an injustice here in the treatment of two international war criminals exists. The latter point is worth reaffirming, in that both leaders committed crimes against peoples outside of their sovereign borders, and thus, must be trialed in the International Criminal Court (ICC). Either that, or scrap the ICC all together. Of course, this injustice is also inconsistent with the liberal notion of ‘equality before the law’, one of many principles being exported to Iraq.
3. Principle – No debate on capital punishment can be heard without this most basic argument. I am against, in all forms, and in all cases, capital punishment. Let me explain why. When i enter a state, i accept such rights as freedom and liberty, in return for respect for the laws of that state. Should the latter part of the agreement be broken, i accept, that state has the right to retract said rights (i.e. through imprisonment etc). However, my life, in its most basic conception, is not a right granted to me by the state. On the contrary, it is granted to me by God. If readers are not religious, then surely we can simply agree that life is not granted by the state. This said, the state therefore absolutely has no legitimate authority to remove such right – a right that was never the possession of the state to begin with – in any circumstance, regardless of the heinous nature of the crime(s) committed.

The sentencing of Saddam Hussein to death, was indeed, a capital mistake. Lets hope that the ruling is overturned swiftly…

Politics of envy?

Well yes. Here we have Peter Hain attempting to tell City companies how much to pay their executives. The Sunday Times tells us that unless companies show more restraint in the pay and perks of top executives, Hain would consider Government intervention to regulate wages. It is true that City executives aren’t doing at all badly and some might find their earnings ‘grotesque’, but this is no mandate for State intervention to cap earnings. And I would worry that our top executives, attracted by faster rising wages and bigger bonuses abroad, would flee and earn just as much as they would have done anyway. Your thoughts?

Remembrance Day

Today marks the official end of the First World War, and commemorates the huge sacrifice of life both in this and other conflicts. While most of the servicemen who were involved in the First World War have now died, we are reminded of their experiences through poetry, much of which is extremely profound and moving, and in my view none more so than John McCrae’s, In Flander’s Fields. Lieutenant Colonel McCrae, was a Canadian servicemen. The death of his friend and former student, Lieutenant Alexis Helmer, in battle inspired Flander’s Fields. McCrae himself died in 1918 of pneumonia, and his poetry was published the same year.

              

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and In the sky
The Larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below. 

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.