- With just 19 months to go our two great political parties are still shouting "Buy us and get x, y or z free or at least cheaper than you would with the other lot". This taps into the national psyche, carefully genetically modified ever since the welfare state was created in 1948, that everyone is really entitled to everything free and anyone trying to make a living, pay for research, be rewarded for effort or anything like that by making a profit must be a bloodsucker on the faces of the poor or hard working families (nobody has expressed a concern about hard working singles) or the disadvantaged or pensioners or whichever group tends to be the hard done by choice of the day. Generally it's pretty much all of us. Commuters, even those who choose to live far away from workplaces, are entitled to subsidised trains says David Cameron ,everybody is entitled to cheaper power although ours are some of the lowest rates in Europe says Ed Miliband. "Government will pay" (for someone has to,-unmentioned) say both and the LibDems. This is just the start. We can expect more goodies before the election. As result, sooner of later many of us will have to pay more taxes. We've probably pretty much run out of evil bankers and wealth creators to squeeze more out of and any left will likely soon follow the man from Virgin in moving their tax domicile to somewhere more welcoming. Why wouldn't they?
- While on economics, Ed with Dad's bit between his teeth, has been saying that yes indeed , a Labour government might do a lot more to keep the cost of living down by controlling prices .This will ensure that nobody can make more than a few quid profit regardless of how much they invest or risk. These are the joys of socialism and its fantasy world which has left the country broke after every Labour government. Prices and/or incomes policies have been tried ever since the French Revolution. Then execution had to be used to deal with the unconvinced. Effective but a bit short term. There was another Labour attempt after World War 2 when UK Plc was short of money and needed some to repay all it had borrowed from the USA to help keep the conflict away from American shores. Then there was Jim Callaghan's dab at it in 1972 accompanied by the Social Contract, a deal with the unions not to be as bloody minded as they might be. Nature took its course . All of these market and gravity defying efforts inevitably fell to earth with a thud. Margaret Thatcher killed off that last one, no doubt with a few choice words. Maybe she asked "Will they ever learn?". Unfortunately the answer is "Probably not".
-Other political flavours of the week include the LibDems swerving all over the road.Nothing new there. Nick was for a moment in "I agree with Dave " mode and said the Guardian shouldn't have published the leaked intelligence documents showing how and what GCHQ and others do, together with others containing information which could seriously threaten the lives of security operatives and their families. His colleague, the ever unpredictable Vince Cable, was , as so often, in "I don't agree with Nick" mode. He said that the Guardian was right to publish.
In another neck of the woods two 14 year old schoolboys were told to shave off the new beards they had grown in line with their personal interpretation of religious requirements or to go home Nick was back to normal "I don't agree with Dave"setting." Anyone can do what they want at school" . Oh the joys of being in coalition even with colleagues nominally in the your own party.
Footnote: Why does Cable go off on these frolics of his own? Probably because he has always bitterly regretted his decision not to stand against Clegg in the party leadership election. He thought that his age ruled him out. He realised too late that his Commons performances when he was the standin during the interegnum went down very well (he was even intelligently funny about Gordon Brown) and he could have landed the job. The electorate thought he was good. Age didn't matter .He still wants it.
-Press censorship is on the way,- or would be if all three party leaders and a pressure group, Hacked Off, gets its way. The latter has been hijacked by celeb actors and others who have been inconvenienced by such things as being reported in the back of a car at an awkward moment. Zips are such unreliable things. These are well off people who relish and thrive upon press attention when the news is good but bristle at the common peoples' right to know when it is ,shall we say, less good or convenient. One can understand anger at some of the media's more intrusive and sometimes downright insulting and untuthful lies and speculation but these are already well covered by laws on libel and slander. Politicians in particular are though keen to be get their hands on the ability to control the press for potentially much more insidious purposes as well as to cover any personal mishaps such as the odd "moment of madness" or inappropriate use of Westminster premesis or furniture.
Whether or not we like the press and how some elements of it do their job and the slants they put on their outpourings, the dangers of state or political sensorship are enormous. Already Mr Mugabe and others must be delighted to see that the British are "getting " true democracy at last. We have already seen some pretty dodgy elections of various kinds thanks to misused postal votes filled in by "community leaders", husbands and others, block votes and other devices. Further incursions on free speech or choice should not be welcome by anyone. The UK has been seen as a model of press and individual freedom of speech across the world. It is something its politicians,- and even celebs,- should value.
- Africa's friends and those who contribute to or cheer on its progress wherever they see it will have said "Oh no!" once more this week. This time the miscreant was the news that the Organisation of African Unity at it conference in Addis Ababa has supported a demand that the continent's Presidents should be immune for prosecution while in office. No act of corruption, violence or even genocide would be bad enough to get them into the ICC's dock before the damage had been done. It would also be a good incentive to stay in power by whatever means might be required. President Kenyatta and others resorted to some good old fashioned anti-colonialist rhetoric , specifically accusing the ICC of being anti-African. It is a dismal picture of peddling backwards. Many Africans, tiring of the misguided notion that "the big man" can do whatever he likes, feel betrayed yet again by the leaders, some of whom they elected. Western international investors also say "Oh no!" and look elsewhere. Chinese investors,- mainly the Chinese government in one guise or another,- aren't too bothered and beckon towards their doorways. That's bad news for Africa's citizens whose new roads, railways, shopping malls will come with some unwelcome hooks, especially if western competitors back off. Ask the continent's elephants for a start.
-Talking of elephants, Tanzania's Minister responsible for wildlife is proposing a shoot to kill policy to deal with ivory poachers. At present their greatly increased rate of activity will wipe out the country's elephant herds by 2025. With that, Tanzania's tourism industry, earner of large amounts of foreign currency and provider of thousands of jobs, would also be largely wiped out, leaving the country even more dependent and tied to the Chinese RMb. Kenya employed the same policy very successfully in the 1990s. In response to the Minister there have been howls of protest from human rights groups. The elephants and those who depend on them to feed their families and secure a future will hope that he will put his ear plugs in.
- While on economics, Ed with Dad's bit between his teeth, has been saying that yes indeed , a Labour government might do a lot more to keep the cost of living down by controlling prices .This will ensure that nobody can make more than a few quid profit regardless of how much they invest or risk. These are the joys of socialism and its fantasy world which has left the country broke after every Labour government. Prices and/or incomes policies have been tried ever since the French Revolution. Then execution had to be used to deal with the unconvinced. Effective but a bit short term. There was another Labour attempt after World War 2 when UK Plc was short of money and needed some to repay all it had borrowed from the USA to help keep the conflict away from American shores. Then there was Jim Callaghan's dab at it in 1972 accompanied by the Social Contract, a deal with the unions not to be as bloody minded as they might be. Nature took its course . All of these market and gravity defying efforts inevitably fell to earth with a thud. Margaret Thatcher killed off that last one, no doubt with a few choice words. Maybe she asked "Will they ever learn?". Unfortunately the answer is "Probably not".
-Other political flavours of the week include the LibDems swerving all over the road.Nothing new there. Nick was for a moment in "I agree with Dave " mode and said the Guardian shouldn't have published the leaked intelligence documents showing how and what GCHQ and others do, together with others containing information which could seriously threaten the lives of security operatives and their families. His colleague, the ever unpredictable Vince Cable, was , as so often, in "I don't agree with Nick" mode. He said that the Guardian was right to publish.
In another neck of the woods two 14 year old schoolboys were told to shave off the new beards they had grown in line with their personal interpretation of religious requirements or to go home Nick was back to normal "I don't agree with Dave"setting." Anyone can do what they want at school" . Oh the joys of being in coalition even with colleagues nominally in the your own party.
Footnote: Why does Cable go off on these frolics of his own? Probably because he has always bitterly regretted his decision not to stand against Clegg in the party leadership election. He thought that his age ruled him out. He realised too late that his Commons performances when he was the standin during the interegnum went down very well (he was even intelligently funny about Gordon Brown) and he could have landed the job. The electorate thought he was good. Age didn't matter .He still wants it.
-Press censorship is on the way,- or would be if all three party leaders and a pressure group, Hacked Off, gets its way. The latter has been hijacked by celeb actors and others who have been inconvenienced by such things as being reported in the back of a car at an awkward moment. Zips are such unreliable things. These are well off people who relish and thrive upon press attention when the news is good but bristle at the common peoples' right to know when it is ,shall we say, less good or convenient. One can understand anger at some of the media's more intrusive and sometimes downright insulting and untuthful lies and speculation but these are already well covered by laws on libel and slander. Politicians in particular are though keen to be get their hands on the ability to control the press for potentially much more insidious purposes as well as to cover any personal mishaps such as the odd "moment of madness" or inappropriate use of Westminster premesis or furniture.
Whether or not we like the press and how some elements of it do their job and the slants they put on their outpourings, the dangers of state or political sensorship are enormous. Already Mr Mugabe and others must be delighted to see that the British are "getting " true democracy at last. We have already seen some pretty dodgy elections of various kinds thanks to misused postal votes filled in by "community leaders", husbands and others, block votes and other devices. Further incursions on free speech or choice should not be welcome by anyone. The UK has been seen as a model of press and individual freedom of speech across the world. It is something its politicians,- and even celebs,- should value.
- Africa's friends and those who contribute to or cheer on its progress wherever they see it will have said "Oh no!" once more this week. This time the miscreant was the news that the Organisation of African Unity at it conference in Addis Ababa has supported a demand that the continent's Presidents should be immune for prosecution while in office. No act of corruption, violence or even genocide would be bad enough to get them into the ICC's dock before the damage had been done. It would also be a good incentive to stay in power by whatever means might be required. President Kenyatta and others resorted to some good old fashioned anti-colonialist rhetoric , specifically accusing the ICC of being anti-African. It is a dismal picture of peddling backwards. Many Africans, tiring of the misguided notion that "the big man" can do whatever he likes, feel betrayed yet again by the leaders, some of whom they elected. Western international investors also say "Oh no!" and look elsewhere. Chinese investors,- mainly the Chinese government in one guise or another,- aren't too bothered and beckon towards their doorways. That's bad news for Africa's citizens whose new roads, railways, shopping malls will come with some unwelcome hooks, especially if western competitors back off. Ask the continent's elephants for a start.
-Talking of elephants, Tanzania's Minister responsible for wildlife is proposing a shoot to kill policy to deal with ivory poachers. At present their greatly increased rate of activity will wipe out the country's elephant herds by 2025. With that, Tanzania's tourism industry, earner of large amounts of foreign currency and provider of thousands of jobs, would also be largely wiped out, leaving the country even more dependent and tied to the Chinese RMb. Kenya employed the same policy very successfully in the 1990s. In response to the Minister there have been howls of protest from human rights groups. The elephants and those who depend on them to feed their families and secure a future will hope that he will put his ear plugs in.
