Another Lady Thatcher on the block!

Sir Mark Thatcher, the controversial son of Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, has secretly married his long term girlfriend, Sarah Russell, in Gibraltar. Russell is not a name that has frequently appeared in the headlines, but news that she is now officially the new Lady Thatcher is likely to change that. This is not to say that the new Lady Thatcher isn’t accustomed to Conserative circles. The 42-year-old is the sister of Viscountess Rothermere, whose husband, Lord Rothermere, oversees the Daily Mail empire. One can’t help but wonder what Lady Thatcher Senior makes of the new addition to the Thatcher entourage…

 

She came. She curtseyed. She conquered.

French ‘première dame’ Carla Bruni has added that extra little bit of glamour to the President “bling bling” Sarkozy’s state visit to the UK. She, in true Jackie O style, has managed to turn what could have been a PR disaster for the President in to a PR coup. However whilst the press have been understandably pre-occupied with Mrs Sarko, I believe that the achievements of the President himself this week have been somewhat overlooked. I have always been vocal in my support and approval for Nicolas Sarkozy, both his politics and his personality, and this visit has further cemented my opinion of him as a capabale and committed statesman. He is a politician of passion and I believe his speech to parliament was nothing short of inspirational.

What Sarkozy lacks for in height he more than compensates for in stature and I sincerely hope that Gordon Brown, or David Cameron for that matter, are taking notes. All in all I think that this state visit reflects particularly well on France, but in a curious way represents a golden oppourtunity for Britain. I see in Sarkozy’s France an oppourtunity for the British to slightly distance themsleves from an unpopular US administration by finding in France a partner on a par with the policy of the United States but lacking the controversy that accompanies it. Whether Gordon Brown siezes the oppurtunity to set himself apart from Blair in terms of foreign policy remains to be seen. After all the talk of change that bumbled from his mouth on the steps of Downing St last June, I see little differences in policy or personal approach. Perhaps he will sieze this oppurtunity and find himself a European partner with whom, in the ever eloquent words of Mrs T, “he can do business”, or perhaps he will let this one slip him by like the Labour leadership of 1994.   

Local View: Teachers Unions – ‘Must try harder’.

Birmingham is currently hosting the teachers union (NASUWT) annual conference in the city’s ICC and the Red Banner is flying high. Not content with deriding the Army (more on that below) the teachers union have now turned on school Academies.

The quasi-private status of these state schools doesn’t fit the socialist mafia’s agenda and they want the government to step in and sting the philanthropists paying for these schools with more bureaucratic legislation. General Secretary of their Politburo, Chris Keats, said “Teachers in academy schools are entitled to the same protection and benefits as teachers in other state schools”.

I agree, but this will be achieved, not through old fashioned Union bullying tactics, but via the very ethos behind Academies- free market forces. Why would any teacher work in a school that didn’t pay them the standard wage? They wouldn’t. The Academy couldn’t function unless it did. We have the rule of law to protect against unjust employers and unfair dismissal – we don’t need a press gang to bully everyone as well.

What the unions really don’t like is the whiff of privatisation. The six Academies across Birmingham will be partly funded by regional philanthropists – a benevolent gift to help the education of some of the poorest in this city. Reality has never stopped a Union rant and it was predictable that NASUWT, the largest of the teachers union, attacked Academies as they, in their words, ‘put public assets into private ownership’. Public ownership has however, seen this country slip further down the European league table for educational standards. Private ownership would never stand for the £1 billion waste of money that was the ‘Sure Start’ programme. These Academies are saving the taxpayer as well as helping pupils.

The financial backers of these Academies are men and women who have made copious amounts of money from sound investments over their lifetime. Why would they back a project that didn’t function properly? The function of a school being a good solid education. Pupils should never be treated like a commodity but remember that the people investing in Academies across this region are doing so to put money back in to the community, their motive is a return to the highest standard of education possible. This fat bloated nanny state simply won’t be able to compete no matter how much the Unionists romanticise public ownership.

This came only a day after a teachers union decided to deride the Army for trying to recruit in schools. Something that is factually wrong but this, as said above, never stopped a union rant.

Paul McGarr, a teacher from East London, gave speech laden with laughably sweet socialist rhetoric (the word ‘imperialist’ was even rolled out!). The irony that in his call for the Army to be balanced, impartial and honest in its recruitment drives he neglected the sentiments himself.
He didn’t elaborate on Saddam’s regime of torture, mass executions, arbitrary arrest and systematic rape. He didn’t speak of the nation building that will, one day, give Iraqi’s the same freedoms that we enjoy. This doesn’t fit his agenda though. When the current members of our armed forces say in their twilight years that they helped build a peaceful democratic Iraq Mr McGarr can tell people that he moaned a bit. This teachers union seem to forget that freedom is rarely free. Thank god we had a decent recruitment drive in 1939 eh…

Like the very notion of unions his message was wholly patronising. It assumed that the people at the top in the Army are liars and those at the bottom are mugs. It assumed that the people joining up are too thick to realise that, in their words, ‘war could be dangerous and that there were humanitarian casualties’. If a young person doesn’t know this then I blame his history teacher and know one else.

What organisation tells the whole truth when seeking to recruit anyway? Large city banks don’t advertise the fact that you may be working 18 hours a day. How many people have applied for a job on the strength of an ‘opportunities for travel’ boost only to find the truth to be every other Wednesday is spent in Nuneaton?

But these two examples represent the inherent interests of Unions. Their purpose is to promote paternalism, their paternalism, at the cost of responsibility. The noble but flawed notion of ‘solidarity’ is undermined because the union leaders have no interest in your position. Your membership is conditional to you swallowing the whole ideology of socialism no matter what the cost to reality.

So why not instead of grandstanding the teachers union help their members to address the problem that 40% of children leave primary school having failed to achieve the minimum standard in reading, writing and mathematics. Or what about the fact that less than half of our16 year olds manage to achieve 5 good GCSE passes, thus further entrenching social stagnation. It’ll be a better legacy than a standing ovation at a conference.

You’re Barred!

This Facebook group has been receving quite a high media coverage lately. It is basically a petition to bar Alistar Darling from every Pub in Britain, a considerable amount are already displaying it in their windows!

 

Join the group here.

Thatcher Fallacy (10)

         

“Thatcherism produced a widening wealth gap”

The implication here is that an increasing wealth gap is a bad thing. However, a) It is not a bad thing, b) it is part of the economic cycle, and c) it is therefore inevitable.

If the wealth gap offends your sense of social justice it really shouldn’t. Income does not have a social conscience, but is determined by the level of demand for a product or service. A large company might be prepared to pay a chief executive a million pounds a year plus bonuses. This is because he is one of only few people who have a proven track record in turning round large companies. His wages reflect his value. A bar man, on the other hand, might work the same number of hours but he is easily replaced. This, not social justice, determines income and resultant income inequality.

And what is the alternative? What if that company decided not to lure a capable executive with an attractive contract? What do we suppose might happen to the company and to the jobs it provides? Inherent to this fallacy is the misunderstanding that the rich are somehow separate to the poor. In fact they are related through the economy.

Put in economic context, the increasing wealth gap can be seen as part of the economic cycle, tending to widen during periods of growth and narrow during periods of recession. During the 1980’s boom income disparities increased, while in the 1970’s and early 1990’s income disparities decreased. The same pattern is mirrored internationally. The last 25 years of relatively high international growth has seen the wealth gap widen, with the United States experiencing the most severe disparities. Ultimately it might be a recession that curbs the most extreme wages.

Far from a bad thing, an increasing wage gap is a symptom of healthy growth.

Pomp & Politics

Nicolas Sarkozy has been welcomed to Windsor Castle by the Queen as he begins a state visit to Britain, the first such visit by a French President in over a decade. His arrival in the UK has been characterised by pomp and pageantry in a way which arguably only the British can pull off. The spectacular and traditional scenes which greeted his arrival has sparked much interest with many well-wishers turning out to greet the visiting President. Whilst naturally all eyes in Windsor were on the Queen and Sarkozy, there is an element of fascination and curiosity regarding the new First Lady of France, Carla Bruni. Miss Bruni now currently being reffered to as Mrs Starker-zy due to the nude modeling shots of her currently circulating in the tabloids, conducted herself in a manner befitting a First Lady as she greeted the Queen with a deep curtsey (and in case you are wondering…yes she kept her clothes on).

Whilst today is very much about pomp, tomorrow will be politics. Sarkozy and Brown have much to discuss regarding the financial crises gripping the world economy (which unfortunately we cannot pin entirely on Brown.. tempting as it may be), the issues arising from immigration and, naturellement, Britains relationship with Europe. So quite a few political hot potatoes to cover in a short space of time, will this visit mark a new era in Anglo-French relations or should we not think about the politics and just enjoy the pomp?

Thatcher Fallacy (9)

     

“Thatcherism produced a North/South divide”

 

It’s not as clear cut as this. The most that can be said is that Thatcherism accelerated a trend. It cannot be said that Thatcherism produced the trend, or that the trend would not have continued without Thatcherism.

In fact the north/south divide, that is, the comparatively slow growth, low incomes and high unemployment of northern regions, has its roots in the inter-war period and before.

The ‘Industrial North’ can be divided into the ‘periphery’ and the ‘heartlands’. It is widely accepted that the periphery, which includes Wales, Scotland and Northern England (with the exception of the Midlands and the North West), experienced a relatively low rate of industrial growth from the 1840’s (1.9% per annum, compared to 3% in the industrial heartlands, 1841-1921). Therefore the periphery’s share of manufacturing output was in relative decline from as early as the mid Nineteenth Century. The same fate became of the manufacturing ‘heartlands’ during the inter-war period.

After the Second World War, manufacturing growth mainly occurred in the South East and to a lesser extent in the Midlands. In effect the economy’s manufacturing capacity from 1841 was draining away from the periphery, then away from the Midlands (although less so from the West Midlands), and towards the South East.

Meanwhile the economy became more dependent on the service sector. Increasingly the balance of payments came to rely on the ‘invisible’ income of the financial sector rather than the ‘visible’ income of industrial exports. As the UK’s prominence as an international finance centre superseded its prominence as an industrial power, the South East, centred around the City of London, was less susceptible to the impact of de-industrialisation and at a comparative advantage in the service era.

This was an established trend. In fact after the post war boom the trend gathered pace. It is now widely accepted that from the early 1970’s most Western economies experienced a major structural shift. This was partly because of an intensification of international competition and also the advent of micro-electronic and processing technology. This put UK manufacturing out of business and required skills which those in the South East were more conducive to. 

The trend was accelerated further by the Thatcher government. The liberalisation of financial markets undoubtedly benefited the south east disproportionately, while anti-inflationary policies, privatisation, and trade union reform squeezed manufacturing.

However, the trend has also post-dated Thatcherism. The Thatcher, Major and Blair government’s have failed to narrow the gap between north and south. Future attempts may or may not succeed, but the causes of the trend are structural and not the fault of agency.

Thatcher Fallacy (8)

   

“Three million unemployed was an unnecessary evil”

In 1979 ‘Monetarism’ was adopted by the Thatcher government. It prescribed that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, that can only be tamed by some reduction in the growth of money supply. The correlation between inflation and money supply was clear:

 

Therefore the immediate objective of the Thatcher government was to reduce the rate of money growth. It was to this end that the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) was geared. Generally it succeeded. Between 1980 and 1984 money supply was reduced and inflation fell from 20% to 5%.

This squeeze, however, produced a rapid increase in unemployment. Between 1979 and 1981 unemployment grew from 1.9 million to 3 million. However, this was an inevitable consequence rather than an unnecessary evil.

In economic terms the gradual increase in inflation since the 1960’s precipitated a shift in policy aim away from full employment to low inflation. Inevitably this resulted in higher unemployment, however during the course of the MTFS the inflationary culture was decidedly broke. In the longer term this has allowed for sustainable job creation and output.

When speaking about the squeeze, Margaret Thatcher claimed that “There was no alternative”. And certainly from a political stand-point she was right. ‘Shock-treatment’ was probably the best political option available to break the inflationary cycle. A gradualist approach may have resulted in a less severe recession, but it is questionable that the more moderate reduction in inflation would have been enough to vindicate the government’s policy.

More broadly, opponents must accept that high unemployment had other causes. External ’shocks’ such as high oil prices and high global interest rates had a sizable impact on UK growth. This was also a period of structural change in the British economy which inevitably resuled in displacement and unemployment.

To suggest that unemployment was an ‘unnecessary evil’ is to suggest that the Thatcher government was completely responsible for it (which it was not), or that it had a viable alternative to Monetarism.

Thatcher Fallacy (7)

   

“Thatcherism produced a greedy consumer society”

 

During the 1980’s much of the regulation that had impeded the free movement of capital was repealed. 

Through the liberalisation of the credit market there was more lending, and more spending financed by lending. Such measures included the abolition of exchange controls, the aboliton of bank lending limits, the abolition of Hire Purchase (Buy now pay later) restrictions, the dissolution of the Building Society cartel, and so on.

Meanwhile, Britain was getting richer. Gross Domestic Product rose faster in the 1980’s than it did during the previous two decades. This became a trend. In fact this year Britain’s GDP has overtaken the United States, Germany and France.

Access to credit and increased earnings have resulted in a consumer explosion. As a result we now own more ’stuff’ than ever before. We are better housed, better furnished, better fed, better clothed, and better looking.

This does not mean we are greedy. Greed is a word people use to explain the purchases of others that they do not themselves understand. I for example, am sometimes prepared to pay for brand-named clothes. I might do so because I like the design or trust the quality of the product. This is only viewed as greed by others who fail to understand my interest. Actually, if they minded their own business the accusation wouldn’t arise in the first place.

Critics claim that the liberalisation of the credit market produced irresponsible lending, over-heat and a recession. They are of course correct. But then freedom was bound to result in mistakes. In the longer term however, borrowers learn to exploit credit to their best advantage.

Thatcher Fallacy (6)

    

“Privatisation is bad for the consumer. It just lines the pockets of directors”

Firstly, we should not be deceived by ‘public ownership’. Rarely is public ownership better for the public than private ownership.

Of course there is the opportunity for directors to line their pockets, but this relies on their sensitivity to consumer demand and their ability to respond efficiently. In other words, the capitalist’s own self-interest serves the interest of the consumer.

Take sugar. It has to be produced, refined, packaged, boxed and transported to millions of destinations around the world every single day. There are thousands of companies involved in the chain; Cardboard and paper manufacturers, sugar producers, graphic designers, advertisers, shipping companies, haulage firms, wholesalers, supermarkets, banks, insurers, and so on. Each agent, motivated by their own profit, ensure that wherever there is demand for sugar it is met. Furthermore, each agent competes to offer their service for less, thus keeping the price of sugar down and widening its availability. 

Privatisation in the 1980’s forced state owned industry to compete and respond to consumer demand in the same way. British Telecom, British Gas, British Petroleum, British Airways, British Airports, British Steel, the water boards, electricity supply and generation, Rolls-Royce, Jaguar Cars, British Aerospace Systems, and many more were sold off. It was the biggest asset sale in history.

The result has been positive for shareholders and consumers alike. Coupled with deregulation of the stock market, privatisation resulted in millions more shareholders. It also resulted in some of the most competitive water, gas and electricity prices in Europe, and one of the most competitive airline sectors in the world, allowing more Brits to travel further afield than ever before.

Easter Lookalike

Courtesy of Private Eye

Thatcher Fallacy (5)

      

“Thatcherism made us richer, but we are no happier”

Independently the two parts of this proposition are correct. It is true that Thatcherism made us richer. It is also true that we are no happier as a result. However, the implication that Thatcherism has therefore failed, is fallacious.

Often, despite economic advancement happiness shows little sign of improving. The reason for this is because humans are never completely happy with things. If humans were completely happy we would lose our momentum and stop advancing altogether. The fact that we are often dissatisfied pushes us still further.

Computers for example, can make people frustrated and angry. We forget all the practical instances where computers make our lives eminently more convenient. We quikcly become dissatisfied and demand better, faster and easier computers.

And so material goods like espresso machines, ipods, laptops, mobile phones and so on, don’t have a permanent impact on happiness. Human happiness doesn’t go up a notch when Apple releases a new even smaller computer. To set economic progress the aim of improving happiness is to set it up for a fall. And this is exactly why the opponents of Thatcherism resort to measuring its success against the same aim.

Thatcher Fallacy (4)

   

“Thatcherism gave opportunity to the few not the many”

One of New Labour’s soundbites is ”Opportunity for the many not the few.” It is very clever. It implies that the previous government only provided opportunity for the few, and portrays them as stuffy elitists. This is a fallacy. In fact the Thatcher government was far more meritocratic than it is ever given credit for.

According to Karl Marx class conflict would end in the realisation of an economic utopia, or in his case Communism. He described this realisation as the dissolving of one controlling class into a free classless society. Thatcher also conceptualised a free classless society, although her’s would be achieved not by a dictatorship of the proletariat, but by the neutral, benign forces of the free market. Adam Smith’s ’invisible hand’ would render background unimportant and merit all-important. 

 

 

“There is no such thing as society” is often quoted. Instead Thatcher claimed there was a free market of individuals, families and perhaps communities. E. Hobsbawm, the eminent Marxist historian, interprets this how it should be. By taking on ’society’ Margaret Thatcher was taking on the conservative establishment and the rigid class structure.

“No such thing as society” was a rallying call to the trapped and frustrated individual. Hobsbawm wrote that “The pillars of the British establishment rightly regarded Thatcherism not as a continuation of the old ways by other means, but as a striking and worrying innovation.” Thatcher herself was aware of this.

The free market meant competition, opportunity, professionalism, meritocracy and aspiration. Not the old boys network, gentlemen’s clubs, family connections and favours.

Through free market reform Thatcherism blurred class distinctions, expanded opportunity, lifted aspirations, and improved the prospects for social mobility. It provided opportunity for the many and scared the living daylights out of the few.

Thatcher Fallacy (3)

    

“Thatcherism destroyed communities”

This is wrong. It was the development of the international economy that progressively rendered industry uncompetitive and their communities redundant. Industries that were once profitable were superseded in terms of commercial viability by identical industries in foreign countries.

Incidentally, lots of industries become uncompetitive for a plethora of reasons. These can be economic, technological, social, climatic and so on. The handloom for instance became uncompetitive when the steam powered loom was invented. Here a technological innovation makes the former industry redundant. ‘Displacement’ happens on a day-to-day basis around the world.

The effect is particularly acute when a town is built to support one industry. The economic and social consequences of a ’staple’ industry’s decline can be severe.

In the 1980s, the Thatcher government simply realised the inevitable and refused to support failing industry with the taxes of successful industry. Instead state owned industry was privatised, private sector operating practices were imposed, and it was made clear that the State would not step in to save industry.

In fact one could make the case that the futile attempts of previous governments to sustain uncompetitive industry gave their communities false hope and only postponed the inevitable re-alignment with the market. Intead these communities should have been helped over a much longer period to readjust to the changes.

Despite the shock treatment, during the 1980s British production and productivity increased markedly, creating new employment opportunities and new communities.

A Candidate for all colours and cultures?

 Amidst all the essay hand in jollifications, I noticed that Barack Obama has commented on the issue of race. Now to my suprise he has tackled the issue head on and acknowledged, what I feel is blaringly obvious, America remains deeply racially divided. If he is to have any realy chance of reaching the Presidency then he has to acknowledge a symptom of the country he clearly wishes to lead. That symptom is that an other wise successful and ‘helathy’ country remains crippled by a cancerous racial divide. Yes it isn’t as obvious as it used to be, but it remains a distinct feature of American life.

This racial divide however is not just “whites v. blacks” as one may assume, it filters in to all social and ethnic groups, black/white, latino/muslim, muslim/white, black/latino, black/muslim etc etc If Obama has any chance of reaching the Presidency he needs to deal with this issue head on and to my great suprise he is beginning to. The best thing he can do is try to show the American people how he is going to be  candidate for all classes ‘cultures and colours’ in American society, not hide behinde the rhetoric of change. However I ackknowledge this is easier said than done, I don’t feel Obama will be the candidatee to heal the divide, but I feel he may set an example for other potential candidates to follow.

The old saying ‘He who wields the knife never wears the crown’ Obama must tackle the issue of Americas racial divide because ultimately I don’t feel he has any other chance of getting the Presidency. Gaining the nomination of the Democrats has been one thing, and that has been pretty damn tricky for him, getting the Presidency of the United States is quite annother.

Just to keep with the current theme…

Thatcher Fallacy (2)

        

“The Thatcher government’s money supply policy was disastrous for the economy, and was then abandoned.”

Both points made here are fallacious.

The central aim of the post-war economic consensus was full employment. Increasingly, monetary and fiscal expansion was used as a means to achieve this desired outcome. However, this was a false hope. An increase in money supply produces only artificial employment and inflation. When inflation inevitably rises the economy falls into recession and all those jobs, and many more, are lost. When this in fact happened the economic consensus proscribed yet further monetary expansion, thus condemning Britain to spiralling inflation.

In the 1980s this inflationary cycle eventually culminated in the over-haul of the post-war economic consensus. Low inflation became the aim of economic policy instead of full employment. Tax increases, lower public spending and high interest rates tightened the money supply. Far from disastrous, this shift is the basis for the subsequent conditions that have allowed sustainable economic output and expansion.

Neither was the policy abandoned. The Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) was designed to progressively reduce the rate of inflation between 1980 and 1983/84. Once inflation came down (which it did), the MTFS was followed by a policy of ‘flexibility not laxity’ where the squeeze would be loosened. The rapid fall in inflation from 20% to below 5% between 1980 and 1984 vindicated the MTFS.

Critics might point to the abandonment of the main measure of monetary supply, M3. It is true that M3 and the other M’s were abandoned, but this was necessary due to their inherent inaccuracies and the Government’s own micro-economic policy which rendered them even less accurate. But this hardly distracts from the fundamental shift in economic policy.

The Thatcher government’s radical departure from Neo-Keynesian economics was vital to Britain’s prosperity.

Boris might actually win it . . .

Graphic tip from Conservativehome.com

12% lead, it seems like the ground is shifting. However, there are 45days remaining there is a long way to, and these polls need to build up a constant consistent lead if to be taken seriously.

 However, it is good news, and I am sure me writing about another poll, will wind a few Labour members up.

 See Boris’ speech at Spring Forum:

Thatcher Fallacy (1)

    

 

“Thatcherism made a small number of Yuppies filthy rich”

This is often used by the Left as an example of how Thatcherism favoured the rich over the poor. This implication however is a fallacy.  

Yuppies can make a huge amount of money, but then they are hugely active economic agents who play the stock market on a daily basis. Some do it for themselves, some do it on behalf of others and take a percentage of the profit in exchange for their market knowledge. However, it should be remembered (though it often isn’t) that Yuppies can also lose a huge amount of money. Yuppies who got used to the high-life during the Big Bang of the 1980s crashed to Earth in the 1987 stock market crash.

This activity, however, is not a superfluous sector of the economy. On the contrary, it performs an important function. Stock purchases allow companies to raise large sums of capital quickly. Expanding companies often ‘float’ on the stock market to fund their growth, or companies encountering financial difficulties sell stock to raise funds. This can both create and stabilise employment far down the economy. Then, when the companies grow or recover the stocks can be sold for a higher price. The Yuppie makes a tidy profit for himself but also has extra money to invest in new companies that require capital.

The wealth created by this virtuous cycle percolates down the economy, creating employment and contributing heavily to government revenue which can be used to fund education, healthcare and other public services. The Thatcher government’s deregulation of the stock exchange boosted this multiplier effect and was in the interests of the whole economy, rich and poor alike.  

Biggest lead for 20 years…

 

Following a week of dropping in the polls and analysts predictions looking pretty glum over the fortunes of the tory party, Labour have helped nudge the party back into a very respectable place with what has been seen as a disaster of a budget.  In fact Yougov’s post budget poll is reporting the biggest Conservative lead since 1987, with a 16% lead!!  If this was repeated in a general election this would provide a Conservative government with a majority of 122, similar to Blair’s position in 2002.  Though the poll lead is most likely to be inaccurate, a massive shift was also reported by ICM from a 3% lead to a 9%.  It will be very interesting to see if these are followed with an upward trend in future polls, what with Cameron’s family on the news and the speeches at Spring forum, there is probably a very strong chance of this.  This is exactly what Brown doesn’t need ahead of the locals and it will be interesting to see if these results are converted in votes, especially in the London mayoral election, such a win would continue to provide Cameron with the momentum he needs..  Perhaps the landslide needed for a Conservative government in 2010 is not that unrealistic…

Pulpit Politics… An American Phenomenon?

 Although the United States has a constitutional barrier separating church and state, the vast majority of Americans want their leaders to be religious and religion undoubtedly plays a huge role in the American political life. Americans are more than comfortable with shows of faith and respond to empassioned preaches from the pulpit. However the fundamental point of this post is should the Church and members of the clergy ever be encouraged to engage in politics? Because I certainly don’t think so.

It is my deeply held belief that politicians should be guided not by the politics of the church but by the principles of the church, morality, decency, tolerance etc. The leader of a nation and those involving in its governing should embody the virtues of morality, truth, fidelity, decency, courage and humility but ultimately should pay little heed to the advice of the church on matters of state or public policy. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a classical example, as far as I am concerned he breached the boundaries of chruch neutrality when he made his inflammatory remarks regarding Sharia Law. Naturally they were not well recieved and he undermined the reputation of the church still further. The church as far as I am concerned should not be turned in to a political platform as it arguably has been in America if it is to retain any relevance in contemporary society. 

The latest controversy to emmerge regarding church politics relates to a controversial preacher in the Obama campaign. From what I understand the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a close friend of Barack Obama’s, has raised some very controversial remarks about America, 9/11, Hillary Clinton and all sorts of political issues. Wright has used his pulpit as an oppourtunity not to preach a message of faith but to preach a message of pulpit politics and intolerance. Wright has claimed “Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was” he went on to suggest “Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary! Hillary ain’t never been called a ‘nigger!’ Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person” Some of the pastors rants can be seen here: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

What irritates me most about such sentiments is that they are inflammatory and inaccurate. Wright is reducing this campaign down to one thing…. race. He is making a distinction between us and them, exactly the kind of tactic that the Clinton campaign has been accused of. Should this have occured in Britain… I am sure there would be a much bigger annd much more serious reaction. Unfortunately this type of message is typical in American politics and the church annd religious figures arguably carry too much influence. Sadly I feel that the US election will be reduced to race and it is the actions of preachers such as Wright, although he is certainly not alone, that will make this possible. Ultimately the church will enter the political realm at its peril.

Headteachers’ cowardice: Forced Marriage Poster

 

The Government very admirably is trying to tackle the issue of Forced Marriage. One aspect of its approach is a poster for schools. This approach aims to raise awarness of the general school population, but specifically can give vital information to any girl or boy who fear that they may become victims of their motherland’s barbaric culture. The poster is quite explicit in its message abnd rightly so.

 Therefore it absolutly amazes me that some schools mostly in cuturally diverse areas (where the posters are most needed) are refusing to put the posters up for fear of causing offense. Well i am sorry these posters should cause offence,i am more offended by anyone being made to marry than i am about a few cultural senstitvities. It is often aspoused that we do not have a cultural identity, well i would challenge that. It is our identity that we allow people the freedom to choose what they do, free from fear and intimidation and schools should be standing up and challenging cultural practices which are abhorrent.

This is a subject which seems to be taboo amongst local authorities and local communities but as labour MP Martin Salter has commented (he was on a committee who launched the poster) “there has been a culture of silence for too long”.

 Headmasters all around this country should put up these posters and stand up for the individual human rights of their pupils rather than using PC politics as a smokescreen.

Similarities anyone… (Student Politics)

Local View: All roads lead to Whitehall.

I’ll admit something from the outset’ this is a bloody boring subject. But it shouldn’t be. Not for any one who drives, is thinking about driving, or is in any way concerned with how this government uses the serious concerns of environmentalism as a smokescreen to raise indiscriminate and arbitrary amounts of revenue from hard working people. So that covers just about every right thinking person I guess. The subject is ‘road pricing’.

Road pricing, in short, is the government’s plans to charge road users by the distance of their journey and depending on the time of travel or, but more likely AND, to charge drivers to enter into a specified zone – much like the London congestion zone.

The subject of road pricing has blighted every major city throughout the UK but was strongly tipped to be introduced first in Birmingham. The government, presumably with a prudent eye on keeping their seats at the next general election, decided that the subject was so emotive – i.e; hated – that they would pass all the tough decisions to Local Government. Recently Birmingham City Council, along with the seven other West Midland council authorities, resoundingly rejected road pricing completely.

Yet despite the almost wholesale rejection of the road pricing scheme (with I believe the possible exception of the Labour hinterland that is Manchester) today in his first budget Alistair Darling decided that the government would still throw oodles of your cash at a further investigation of road pricing. The report ‘confirms additional funding to help local authorities develop proposals for charging schemes’. Errr…Darling, we don’t need it.

Previous form does not make for optimistic reading for anyone concerned with where their hard earned money is going. In a Freedom of Information request obtained by professional Tax ‘watchdogger’ the Taxpayers Alliance the regional transport agency for the West Midlands, Centro, blew a cool £9 Million looking in to the issue of road pricing alone. That’s NINE MILLION QUID. When this is placed in the context of normal working class families being lumbered with the largest tax burden in modern history then it makes the proposed waste even more scandalous. It’s like proposing funds to research the Millennium Bug again. Or the Sinclair C5 as a viable transport option.

All this is taking place despite reports from the Association of British Drivers that the Congestion scheme in London has reduced neither congestion nor carbon emissions. This is often because the biggest gas guzzlers, such as taxis and coaches and buses, are generally exempt from, or pay, the charge making the ‘environmental’ objectives of the tax a dubious proposition. Indeed the specter of that new fundamentalism ‘environmentalism’ is behind it all and as its adherent’s use the power of nightmares to squeeze more cash out of you it becomes a nice little earner from the government. I’m not saying that environmental issues are not important but when almost half the worlds academics can’t agree you’ll forgive me if I remain a tad cynical.

This budget gave nothing to hard working families across the country. I cant elaborate on this further as, unlike a lot of commentators on the budget, I won’t/can’t play armchair economist. I’ll leave it to the pros to pick the government apart. Lucky enough this government is now so disliked that their number is not few.

Oddly the media reports that drivers were ‘handed a boost’ by deferring a rise in petrol till October. That’s not a boost. It doesn’t matter if you’re going to be shot at dawn or at lunch. It’s still a bum deal.

All this is before we get on to the baleful privacy issues relating to the government knowing your every move when you’re driving. I wonder if Orwell was a fan of the motor car…

you have no right to choose at conception

It has been in the news lately about the debate surround a deaf couple’s want to make sure there ivf baby is also deaf so that it can share in their own culture and experiences. This is wrong, and so is all human choice in conception.

We have no right whatsoever to chose the sex, eye colour, potential IQ or any other feature of a child. The beauty of the human race is its difference and diversity, this form of interference allows parents to exercise to much control over there not even born yet child. Having a baby is a risk, they might love art and you wanted a scientist, well tough luck.

This is a slippery slope to designer babies, eugenics and the attempt to create a flawless society. In this case it is wrong to deliberately engineer a disability in a child, and in the wider sense you have no right to choose anyways.

Sorry this is short and not more eloquent but my opinions are concise on this, when you attempt to conceive a child you take must accept what you create, be it blond brunette, boy girl, deaf blind or any other variation.