Reparations For Slavery

Yes, the slave trade was appalling. Thankfully some good people of Britain stepped forward and began the campaign and that campaign grew until the trade was not just outlawed in this country but actively suppressed and fought, at far greater expense than the profits from slavery, across the globe.

Why the decendants of those who fought slavery with their wealth and on occasion gave their lives should apologise is beyond me.

Maybe the first people from whom to seek an apology should be those who had created the product and ran the trade in the first place, namely Africans and Arabs.

Posts far better and more eloquent than mine, but echoing my views can be found at The Devil's , Wat Tyler's and Tim Worstall's blogs.

Be under no illusions, the request for an apology will not "draw a line in the sand" as some seem to say, as there are a number of busy parasites earning a living from this issue. Be under no illusions, such parasites will never be satisfied, for any closure will smash their ricebowls. Be under no illusions, once the verbal apology is secured, then calls for reparations will follow as certainly as night follows day. Such calls will grow ever more shrill and aggressive. Race Relations will suffer. For the small but highly vocal group of parasites this will be a win-win situation, for they feed off mistrust, anger and division.

We should expose any Government body, Quango or entity which in any way funds these parasites.

They are a tumour on our nation. We all know what should be done to tumours.

Cut it out, man, cut it out!

Career Criminals - the ha'peth of tar?

100,000 criminals creating half of all crime.

40k p.a. to imprison them.

100,000 x 40,000 = £4Bln p.a.

The cost of crime in Britain is judged to be around £60bln p.a. and an inestimable cost in human suffering.

To me it is a no-brainer. Build the prisons and have a 3-strikes rule ending in a life sentence for habitual criminals who have absolutely no intention of living an honest life.

As I have posted on other blogs in the past, I am certain that with the right motivation, robust enforcement and the cutting down of the "social security hammock" the vast majority of otherwise low-level criminals would reform by themselves and lead an honest and useful life. They are currently, in effect, spoilt brats with no concept of boundaries.

This will leave a hard core of criminals who are beyond reform and the forces of law and order will have plenty of resources to deal with them.

Gambling: Tessa is either an imbecile or a liar

...or possibly both.

A super casino in the proposed form is heat but not light. Let us just dispell some utter fallacies (polite for lies repeated by idiots as truth).

No real economic activity will be created by casinos. All it will do is absorb money that would othrewise be spent on other things. Any activity, if sitting like a sack of rotting spuds infront of an electronic money hoover can be called 'activity', will be non-productive. Nothing of value will be created either tangible in the form of products to sell locally or abroad, or intangible by improving the efficiency of the economy as a whole (e.g. as banking or insurance can). Don't even try and excuse this by the creation of "jobs" - that is just pathetic. Don't even try and excuse this by implying a tourist trade. A few thousand low paid staff can in no way offset the vast profits being creamed off. If anything it will drag the economy down as people are distracted by the entire fraud of a "win".

Wealth will be created, but the overwealming majority of it will be exported to the US by the parent companies running the casinos, thus draining this country of wealth and weakening still further the balance of payments. Oh, and Gordon gets his cut. What a squalid creature he is.

This is aside from the almost certain damage to the fabric of society and to the lives of the poor suckers who will end up shackling themselves to the machines.

An MP (or was it a Councillor) tried to dismiss Manchester as "a few slot machines". How utterly disingenuous. Such a statement is so close to a lie you could not get a cigarette paper between.

Reform the laws regarding the operation of existing casinos, fine, but I see no evidence to the contrary to the effect that it is just a cover operation to enable certain parties to set up shop in the UK and fleece the population. This country has so many issues to resolve and so many things that can be done to improve the lot of the population but this government fiddles away Parliamentary time on gambling. It is an utter disgrace. I expect the Manchester Casino project will bring all sorts of "regeneration monies" to be paid by us, spent by the Council or some such QANGO with their mates unlikely not to benefit so that the casino owners can make even more money so as to take even more of it out of the country, while the Government takes its cut.

I call that a racket, but what else do you expect from supporting gambling?

If they want Super Casinos for the "benefits" - i.e. jobs and tourism, then license them as not-for-profit organisations with a share going to the lottery fund. This will expose the true motivations of the Government.

The only thing I can see is that it will undermine the Rule of Law in Manchester or wherever the casino is built, while impoverishing the country as a whole due to capital outflows, with the Government as a complicit co-conspiritor and lackey.

Lessons from 300 and Sparta

I have long awaited the film 300 and plan to see it soon.

There are many many lessons to be learnt from the entire conflict between the Greek City States and the Persian Empire. Heroism, sacrifice, freedom vs. enslavement. However, I am going to touch on one aspect that is hidden within the structure of the Spartans : Wealth and voting.

In the City State of Sparta, the ruling class, the Spartans, were not permitted (in theory) silver and gold or significant possessions and to engage in commerce. They were meant to live a bare, unadorned existence - hence the term. These things were left to the merchant classes. However, the merchants were not permitted to vote.

One suspects that a ruling elite not permitted to collect gold or luxuries may take a very different attitude to politics and war. You would suspect that it would focus on securing basic resources and defence of same. Those who can collect gold could not vote but would also find it very difficult to bribe those who could. One can see how easily honour and conduct could become the Spartan's 'gold' in such a society.

Now we have a Government mired as deep as any other. Not only the "cash for honours", but the PFI, PPP and ever expanding "fifth sector", the parasitical organisations that earn their living from servicing State bodies and their whims. A prime example being a Government monopoly outsourced to a single monopolistic private entity and run at a profit. Shades of the ancient Kings dishing out concessions to wealthy merchants in return for unrepayable loans to fund wars.

The current setup is very very dangerous to freedom. The monies involved are enormous - beyond comprehension for the individual and so quite capable of turning them. A Government that can grant a concession or large project is open to corruption. Too much money stands to be had (I was to say "won" but that would imply a competition based upon suitability). Not only that, what better way to keep potential influencers "tame" than to offer them the prospect of a steady stream of juicy tax-funded projects as long as they behave?

Labour have managed to tame the wolf by feeding it OUR food!

Sparta appeared to recognise the need to separate State and lust for wealth. This is not just a problem at the Oligarchical level. We currently have people who are paid out of the State purse. Millions of them, in fact. They have a vote. It would be odd if they did not vote for whomsoever maintained or augmented their income, their access to the State teat. This is tantamount to corruption, for what else is vote-buying? For what else is it when Governments dare not cut services in case the recipients vote against them? It is a natural result of a dysfunctional system. Natural, but wrong.

Every "right" to be provided for imposes an obligation to provide. The government gives the rights, yet the taxpayer has to shoulder the obligation on pain of imprisonment. Wrong.

At the top we have the trough-feeders, the politicians themselves and an army of businesses being invited to elbow themselves alongside. At another end of the trough we have the dependent who threaten to barge out any elite should they find the flow of swill slowing.

Filling the trough yet kept away from it are the hard working taxpayers - those with the obligation yet not the right.

Two things need resolving, yet the secret to dealing with one lies in the other.

First we need to reverse the law introduced at the beginning of the C20th that allowed those who gained their income from the State to vote - this had been illegal until then to prevent...vote buying. This wisdom was overturned in the desire to establish the proto Welfare State. That should have been a warning to them, but it was ignored. That law was there for a very good reason. The bricks were removed and replaced by straw.

Once such a reversal in the law is in place and the wisdom of the past restored, the second step - the reduction in the size of the State and reformation of its operations can take place without those who benefit directly consciously or subconsciously preventing it.

A State that does not hold sway over vast expenditures, arbitrary licenses, permits etc is not a State worth bribing. Without a need to bribe, corruption has less of a purchase (literally).

This is one reason why Government is bad and why less Government is less so.

As with so many things to do with Government, I believe it is a matter of the least worst option out of a series of bad alternatives.

The London £20.12bln Olympics

Let me first say that I do think a well run, efficient, clean Olympics is a good thing for this country. Any reason to finally get the Crossrail going for the love of 'riced.

What I do NOT want is some corrupt, inefficient, shambollic, late, disorganisesd and shoddy affair as appears likely, given that that imbecile Jowells is "in charge".

Utter moron does not come close, as if she were a moron she would not have the wit to perform such a monumental feat of self-delusion as would be required to not have her resign and never darken public office again.

Tessa, I want you to swear by your mortgages that if the Olympics is any combination of: Late, corrupt, shoddy, over budget, ugly, tacky or in any way embarassing to the UK you will foreswear any future employ by the State.

....thought not.

Cleaving to the Winner

I'm Sorry, Dave, I can't let you do that...

Something I have observed for a long time is people do like winners and nowhere else more so than in politics

People are hard-wired to cleave to winners. People might agree with somebody's viewpoints, but they want to belong and support the WINNER who has at least some of the viewpoints they agree with, the glossy coat and the impression of backing and access to resources. It might be odd, but it would not surprise me if people filter on winner first, then select amongst the potential winners who they will back. I guess this is primeval, as if you are on the losing side you might just get a Tapir jawbone whumped into your noggin.



Why bring this up now? I saw this extract of a GMTV interview with George Osborne courtesy of Iain Dale on the topic of MP defections:

Ozzy: We’ve got councillors who have switched over to us and there’s a real sense at the moment that the excitement is with us, that people are coming to join us. In my own local area people are coming to join my local party. And you know there are quite a lot of ideological soulmates out there who say ‘Well hold on, actually the Conservative party are the future and actually this lot have had their go and they’re the past.’

I think this is more to do with "they are the losers. Look a our shiny new feathers!"

People want to back winners, but it does not work properly if you keep getting the same MP pond-life floating from one rock-pool to the next each time the tide looks like going out.

This country is hamstrung by floating constituencies as it is. Worse still if it has a nebulous community of self-interested MPs.

Oh, sorry, forgot. We already have one.

The only Economy the Chancellor has a tight grip on is an Economy with the truth.

School Leaving Age Raised to 67

Well, not quite, but we are heading there.

More control freakery from NeueArbeit. As usual, they come out with some new "law" or "compulsion" - this time stay at school until 18 - backed up by inspectors and the compulsory fines for non-attendance. I would not be surprised if Tony and Gordon have a rule that any new legislation comes out without more compulsions and associated fines, then the Minister responsible will themselves get fined.

This means more admin, more "salaried unemployed" and more inefficiency. More heat than light.

If kids realised that a life outside of work is one of no roof, no money and no life, then I think they would be sufficiently motivated to sort themselves out. Right now far too many are born into households already suckling entirely or mostly from the State teat and so have no motivation to provide for themselves. Some are even on their third generation (and note that many professionals reproduce in their thirties at ages that the feckless are grandparents...). I post here about my views on kids born into welfare (the main cause of "child poverty" I suspect).

Schools need to be teaching children of how ghastly their life will be if they cannot read, write or behave in a civilised manner. If it means scaring the living daylights out of them at "story time" with "The Little Match Girl" or other such tales, then so be it. Add to that balance and the concept of philanthropy, then we might be moving in the right direction.

More Inequality from the Chancer-lor.

Not content with his damage so far, Gordon has further entrenched his social interference and distortion.

If he had abolished the 10% tax bracket and made it 0%, I might have been supportive, but no, he decides to take more money from those people so the gurning babboon can be seen to hand it back to some of them. BETTER TO NOT TAKE IT FROM THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU IMBECILE.

As for the treatment of small companies, it just shows that Gordon just does not 'get' it. Small companies create employment and make the country's economy more efficient and innovative. It often takes years before the founder of a small business is given the time of day by banks.

I believe the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer should only be open to those who have built their own business, however modest.

What Gordon Brown Should Say This Budget

1: Flat Taxes, in particular a personal allowance of £12k so people doing a 40hr minimum wage job are under the banding. He won't because he loves to keep people dependent via "tax credits" and loves his social engineering. UKIP have made a reasonable fist of it so far. I think the rates can come down significanlty once it is running.
2: Own up to the massive off-balance-sheet debt. No, he won't do that, as this would expose him as the fraud that he is.
3: Reverse the Pensions "claw back", as old Labour would call this if the Tories did it.

In Education, I suspect Gordon will pledge to spend the same per child as the private sector and also impose new rules on Private Schools qualifying for charitable status, i.e. get his dirty fingernails into them so he can control what they do, who they take and how they teach them. His meddling may well ruin the schools, then he can say they are not value for money.

Fact is, if Gordon is willing to spend the same as the private sector, why not just let parents choose between private and State sector? As with taxes, Gordon loves to make people "grateful" and dependent and loves his social engineering. He knows people would flock to the private sector.

We will have "green taxes" but if Gordon was serious he would not have sold off Westinghouse part of BNFL to Toshiba, thus removing a lucrative advanced Nuclear Power Station technology provider. They could have cranked out power stations to remove our dependency on fossil fuels and thus reducing our carbon footprint to negligable levels. Dogma over prudence. Instead, they are going to crank out power stations for China and the profits go to Japan. The man is an ass.

Rolling Stock Leasing

We hear that the Government is going to buy rolling stock to lease to rail companies.

We already have a cartel small number of leasing companies providing rolling stock to the time limited monopolies operators.

So, the government invests OUR cash up front to buy rolling stock instead of the private sector leasing companies. I am certain that the leasing companies will squeal like stuck pigs if the government stock gets leased before their own inventory. Thus, the leasing companies are likely to get pretty close to 100% utilisation on their investment. Nice.

The government will pay up front and has a chance of being left with surplus stock - it is almost like UNDERWRITING the rail leasing companies losses for underutilised stock without the rail leasing companies ever having to pay a bean up front.

It is another example of Sociofascistic behavour. The government gets indirect control over the leasing companies - i.e. "do what we say or your fat profits are at risk", the leasing companies get their fat profits and the taxpayer is well and truly stuffed AGAIN.

UPDATE 2007-30-23: The BBC Story here. Hat tip: Not Proud Of Britain (But would like to be)

Party Funding

I posted this over at Roger's Manifesto last year. A cap on spending, union normalisation and no more taxpayers money. My views are pretty much unchanged.

The (Unwitting?) Assault on Charities

The government is currently trying to "engage" with the voluntary sector. More and more of the larger charities are providing public services funded by public money. This is a great danger, in my view.

However, only 26% of charities that deliver public services agree that they are free to make decisions without pressure to conform to the wishes of funders. This is a natural response, as who pays the piper, calls the tune.

It may be natural but it is not necessarily a good thing.

Surely, if the State enlists ever more voluntary organisations in this way, providing more funding and, naturally, wishing to have influence, then the "third sector" increasingly becomes controlled by the State and subject to its dogma, objectives and agenda. The charities will naturally bend towards the money, like a plant seeking sunlight. If only the reality were similarly without strings.

Charities that have to pander to the whim of the State cease to be able to innovate as freely or provide alternative, lateral solutons in the way that they traditionally have. They will almost certainly think twice about providing services, performing studies and especially speaking out against State dogma. We cannot trust the State not to lean on the charities to cease operations and activities which may expose their wrongheadedness.

Charities and the nation will lose out.

I think it is no use criticising the behaviour of the State once it begins funding charities or to criticise the Charities who yield, as this is a logical manifestation of what is a dysfunctional arragement. One that has country at large robbed of innovation, responsiveness and efficiency.

This does not excuse the State, however. They need to back off and allow charities to do their work.

Now, I am no friend of the oleagenous David Miliband, but stupid he is not. If he were, that might excuse him.

To think that greater State involvement would not harm, limit, encumber, distort, corrupt and shackle the voluntary sector would require innocence, no, ignorance and a level of imbecility and stupidity. Miliband cannot use that as an excuse.
So, Miliband either:

secretly knows the effect upon the sector, but will not admit it even to himself - his Sociofascistic reptile brain keeping the dark secret and motivation hidden from his higher thought processes.

or:

that he really does know the eventual consequences of these activities and he is just trying, quite successfully I might add, to fool the public at large.

Seeing as I refuse to accept that he is stupid and remembering that intelligence is no guarantee of wisdom or integrity, that leaves Miliband as being either a conscious or unconscious hijacker of our civil society.

If the State wants better funding for Charities, it should stop taxing people into oblivion and allow them to make their own choices. I know it is hard for political animals, central office wonks and their pet rocks to understand, but people who earn their own living tend to have pretty good judgement on what to spend their money on.