Well what a week or more in which two of our largest chickens have come home to roost. First we had the riots and now we are seeing another stage in our European financial crisis. What is worse is we see our politicians responses to them both. On the riots it seems the big idea is MORE, whether it be more money thrown at the problems of deprivation or more laws and restrictions. On Europe and the financial crisis, the idea seems to be more as Merkel and Sarkozy seem to want more central control over Europe and pull in those who also sit on the periphery of the Eurozone. The whole response is akin to trying to hose a fire down with a tanker full of petrol. Having demonstrated time and time again that these approaches have had no effect other than to destabilise societies, they continue to push for more of it.
We're heading down the wrong path and it goes to a scary place. I have no problem with Europe. It is vital we trade with them, both for our economy and theirs. For me however there are things which should remain within the control of each individual sovereign nation, powered by their own democracy. From that base I believe we can create the tools from which each nation, including our own can thrive and the people within it. I do not believe I am alone in such thinking. In fact I know I'm not. I only have to look at the comments under the blog entries on independent bloggers as well as in the comments section on MSM websites, to know that the majority in this country want better. Better for themselves, their families and their nation. Yet despite that we continue what appears to be our march into the night.
That march has to stop. I know when I look at the comments sections, people cry out to Britain to wake up as well as cry that someone should do something. Although I think he has been a terrible US President, there was one thing that Barack Obama said correctly on his campaign trail when he told the people
"You are the miracle you've been waiting for"
Britain needs renewal on a whole range of fronts. The first step is to renew our democracy because that is where all the decisions that have surrendered our nation and our sovereignty have taken place, by people who supposedly work for us. We are being beaten over the head with our own money. We are being taxed with no representation. We need to renew our democracy through democratic lawful and legitimate means by holding those to account. For too long we have shown no interest in politics yet all the time it has taken an interest in us. The dynamic has been the wrong way round and it can go on no longer.
In the US the model for this renewal has been ongoing in recent years in the form of the Tea Party movement and it has something we need. Do not fall for the mainstream categorisation of this movement as full of cranks, racists and extremists as I will explain in future posts because there is much to learn from them as we take our first steps to renewing our country.
But the time is now, not in the future. The signs are that the future will be too late. The time is now because there is much to do.
Thursday, 18 August 2011
Sunday, 14 August 2011
So good I read it twice
h/t Wittering Witney (via Twitter).
This should be essential reading for all. I read it twice (and will probably come back to it again), although it is difficult to read whilst your head is nodding in agreement through tear stained eyes at what our nation has become:
The Australian - British Rioters the spawn of a bankrupt ruling elite
This should be essential reading for all. I read it twice (and will probably come back to it again), although it is difficult to read whilst your head is nodding in agreement through tear stained eyes at what our nation has become:
The Australian - British Rioters the spawn of a bankrupt ruling elite
Saturday, 13 August 2011
Straight Talking
(h/t A Tangled Web)
He gets a bit sweary - you've been warned.
I'm always amused by our elected officials dancing around issues with clever words that they believe is straight talking. Their particular favourite lead in at the moment is "let me be clear" before twisting themselves in knots.
Lord knows who this guy is but this is what straight talking on economics looks like:
He gets a bit sweary - you've been warned.
I'm always amused by our elected officials dancing around issues with clever words that they believe is straight talking. Their particular favourite lead in at the moment is "let me be clear" before twisting themselves in knots.
Lord knows who this guy is but this is what straight talking on economics looks like:
Everything we need to know
One of the emerging pieces of news over the weekend is that having flown in to save his nation, our Dave is to go one step further by hiring former New York and Los Angeles police commissioner, William Bratton as an adviser.
As someone who has done a bit more than the usual cursory reading of Bratton I am something of a fan of what was achieved under his leadership. I should therefore welcome his appointment but I have real reservations about this one as I am fearful that his appointment is pure window dressing on the part of Cameron. Cameron at the moment is posturing as tough talking politician looking to grab the problem by the scruff of the neck and asking Bratton to be an adviser would underscore that to those who don't spend any time scratching the surface on their news. Here's a few reasons why I think this might not go anywhere.
Cameron isn't exactly without form on window dressing politics. It doesn't take me to list all the times he has made out he will take a tough line on something only to water it down. Bratton will have some tough uncompromising views that is going to attract attacks from a liberal press who say anything they don't agree with as extreme. Cameron is not one to stand and make an argument when challenged on things. He has been prone to the odd volte face when he comes up against a bit of resistance from those areas of the press that would still criticise him if he did everything they ever asked. I expect Bratton to be on a tight lead and to have much of what he says watered down. I would not be surprised if he quits the role quite soon when he finds that Cameron has little appetite to implement his recommendations.
Another reason I believe that Cameron is engaging in pure window dressing is that what Bratton advocates is not rocket science. His ideas are well published and the background to his thinking can be found anywhere. Much of it is probably already known to most coppers and many of them may well agree with his approach. You don't actually need Bratton to come and advise you, any level headed British Officer could well do that and I recall they once had one in Ray Mallon (although I'm not sure where he ended up).
What it really needs is a willingness to follow through on his thinking and suggestions. That would take an act of political will. If his ideas were already well documented and were apparently so well thought of by Cameron it is a fair question to ask where the hell are they? Why aren't they already being employed? The problems we saw come to a head over the last week have been coming for a long time, they were as obvious as the day is long. It was a question of when, not if this would come to a head. In fact many commentators pointed to employing Bratton's tactics over the past few years to solve the problem. So if they didn't want them then, what makes us think we'll get them now.
The final problem is one that many have already alluded to in looking back at the riots. The issues surrounding the lawlessness are many but one often overlooked issue is the system. To have an impact you have to have executive control over the system. Bratton's success was due in part to the fact that he had control over one aspect of the system. If he ordered it, it happened because he had executive powers in his role. Here he has no such powers having been ruled out of applying for the top job at the Met. The result is that the role is likely to go to a careerist and won't be what often gets referred to as a Copper's Copper. In this respect, Bratton's chances of influence have been cut off at both knees and have had both arms tied behind their backs.
I hope I'm wrong on this. I hope to swallow my words along with some humble pie but I doubt I will.
I suspect Cameron knows all of these points that I have raised and by going down this line in the full knowledge of them will demonstrate this is all about window dressing for his own sake.
As someone who has done a bit more than the usual cursory reading of Bratton I am something of a fan of what was achieved under his leadership. I should therefore welcome his appointment but I have real reservations about this one as I am fearful that his appointment is pure window dressing on the part of Cameron. Cameron at the moment is posturing as tough talking politician looking to grab the problem by the scruff of the neck and asking Bratton to be an adviser would underscore that to those who don't spend any time scratching the surface on their news. Here's a few reasons why I think this might not go anywhere.
Cameron isn't exactly without form on window dressing politics. It doesn't take me to list all the times he has made out he will take a tough line on something only to water it down. Bratton will have some tough uncompromising views that is going to attract attacks from a liberal press who say anything they don't agree with as extreme. Cameron is not one to stand and make an argument when challenged on things. He has been prone to the odd volte face when he comes up against a bit of resistance from those areas of the press that would still criticise him if he did everything they ever asked. I expect Bratton to be on a tight lead and to have much of what he says watered down. I would not be surprised if he quits the role quite soon when he finds that Cameron has little appetite to implement his recommendations.
Another reason I believe that Cameron is engaging in pure window dressing is that what Bratton advocates is not rocket science. His ideas are well published and the background to his thinking can be found anywhere. Much of it is probably already known to most coppers and many of them may well agree with his approach. You don't actually need Bratton to come and advise you, any level headed British Officer could well do that and I recall they once had one in Ray Mallon (although I'm not sure where he ended up).
What it really needs is a willingness to follow through on his thinking and suggestions. That would take an act of political will. If his ideas were already well documented and were apparently so well thought of by Cameron it is a fair question to ask where the hell are they? Why aren't they already being employed? The problems we saw come to a head over the last week have been coming for a long time, they were as obvious as the day is long. It was a question of when, not if this would come to a head. In fact many commentators pointed to employing Bratton's tactics over the past few years to solve the problem. So if they didn't want them then, what makes us think we'll get them now.
The final problem is one that many have already alluded to in looking back at the riots. The issues surrounding the lawlessness are many but one often overlooked issue is the system. To have an impact you have to have executive control over the system. Bratton's success was due in part to the fact that he had control over one aspect of the system. If he ordered it, it happened because he had executive powers in his role. Here he has no such powers having been ruled out of applying for the top job at the Met. The result is that the role is likely to go to a careerist and won't be what often gets referred to as a Copper's Copper. In this respect, Bratton's chances of influence have been cut off at both knees and have had both arms tied behind their backs.
I hope I'm wrong on this. I hope to swallow my words along with some humble pie but I doubt I will.
I suspect Cameron knows all of these points that I have raised and by going down this line in the full knowledge of them will demonstrate this is all about window dressing for his own sake.
Friday, 12 August 2011
Now we'll see won't we?
(h/t Old Holborn)
It looks like we're about to see whether our politicians meant what they said in their grand preening exercise yesterday when they talked about serious action for those who had been involved in the riots. Particularly on the spot over this one is our PM. One of the items mentioned yesterday was the removal of benefits for those found to be involved in the looting.
It looks like the first test of this piece of rhetoric has arrived in the form of Wandsworth Council apparently issuing an eviction notice to the family whose offspring was involved in the events of the last few days. Unfortunately it is something of a no win situation for a politician.
The process now involves the order application going through the courts to be assessed by a judge who will rule on the decision. We are about to see if the judge will grant it. If it is not granted, the outcry will join the other criticisms around the tough talk such as the light sentences being meted out contrary to what was suggested. If the judgement is to evict them, whilst politicians might use this as the basis for reflected glory, another question will be lurking in the wings. If no new powers have been designed, such a decision will be based on existing laws. The question will be one of where was the deployment of these available laws in days and years gone by when people were crying out for help and protection. The idea that they were hamstrung by other laws will be shown to be an opportune falsehood for some strange reason being used to maintain the status quo.
Whichever light you look at it in, it doesn't look good does it?
It looks like we're about to see whether our politicians meant what they said in their grand preening exercise yesterday when they talked about serious action for those who had been involved in the riots. Particularly on the spot over this one is our PM. One of the items mentioned yesterday was the removal of benefits for those found to be involved in the looting.
It looks like the first test of this piece of rhetoric has arrived in the form of Wandsworth Council apparently issuing an eviction notice to the family whose offspring was involved in the events of the last few days. Unfortunately it is something of a no win situation for a politician.
The process now involves the order application going through the courts to be assessed by a judge who will rule on the decision. We are about to see if the judge will grant it. If it is not granted, the outcry will join the other criticisms around the tough talk such as the light sentences being meted out contrary to what was suggested. If the judgement is to evict them, whilst politicians might use this as the basis for reflected glory, another question will be lurking in the wings. If no new powers have been designed, such a decision will be based on existing laws. The question will be one of where was the deployment of these available laws in days and years gone by when people were crying out for help and protection. The idea that they were hamstrung by other laws will be shown to be an opportune falsehood for some strange reason being used to maintain the status quo.
Whichever light you look at it in, it doesn't look good does it?
Juxtaposing
Yesterday I was over at Inspector Gadget looking at the video below and reading the comments (which given their number, took an age):
Now to be honest I know nothing of the bloke and don't really know if he had a legitimate gripe with the police or not. This isn't a post about that.
What I was looking at during this guys rant, was the crowd around him and the police's reaction to him. Whilst the police stood there and essentially didn't react, I looked at the crowd around them, smirking, smiling and laughing whilst the officers just stood there and took it.
My thinking soon drifted to wonderment of what would happen to the crowd if they had to stand there and have someone tell them a few own truths. Would they be able just to stand there and not react or would they just "gob off" as they do to try and deflect any criticism of themselves.
How would they handle someone railing at them with someone not really holding back. How about having Pat have a dig at them like this (assuming they could understand the big words):
Now to be honest I know nothing of the bloke and don't really know if he had a legitimate gripe with the police or not. This isn't a post about that.
What I was looking at during this guys rant, was the crowd around him and the police's reaction to him. Whilst the police stood there and essentially didn't react, I looked at the crowd around them, smirking, smiling and laughing whilst the officers just stood there and took it.
My thinking soon drifted to wonderment of what would happen to the crowd if they had to stand there and have someone tell them a few own truths. Would they be able just to stand there and not react or would they just "gob off" as they do to try and deflect any criticism of themselves.
How would they handle someone railing at them with someone not really holding back. How about having Pat have a dig at them like this (assuming they could understand the big words):
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Answers on a postage stamp please
We've been fortunate to have a relatively quiet night and hopefully it is more than a lull in the proceedings. Of course some might have some questions about some of the things we have seen and a little bit of "what next?". So here are a few of mine:
I see the courts are handing out sentences (albeit paltry) for virtually every crime related to the riots. What's changed? What I mean by that is for years now the British public as been crying out for action on crime and all the time we've been given short shrift. Politicians have pointed to all sorts of reasons why it couldn't happen while we despaired and our criminal element grew stronger. Suddenly, Dave and the other cronies have had some bad press and all that has changed. I don't think the MP's have been rewriting the law from the various villas around the world so these powers are not new and yet suddenly we can apply them. Hmmm, would it be evidence that there has been deliberate application of brakes on magistrates from nipping this kind of thing in the bud.
I understand all police leave has been cancelled. Aside from questions about how sustainable this is over the longer term, I wonder what it says to the public when politicians are asking them to do more with less, when it turns out they will get paid for having their holidays interrupted to return and talk this subject to death for their own political ends. There are several appeals going on across the Internet to raise funds for the mugged student and Aaron Biber, the barber in his 80's who got turned over. How many of those MP's will redirect their pay for today to such causes to show they really mean those platitudes each of them will utter when they stand up in Parliament today?
What exactly does water cannon deployed on 24 hours notice mean? Does it mean asking the rioters to come back to the same place the next night so you that they can get hosed down. Is this what the Home Secretary meant by policing by consent? The oddity of this is that it gives the impression that tough talk was for show, in which the PM can sound tough making promises that he is never really going to have to deliver on.
My final question is what now? Yes it has gone quiet and I hope it remains that way but in reality nothing has changed. All that has happened is the perpetrators of this have retreated to sleep off their indulgence and to rest their shoulders from the huge chip on them they've been carrying around. Their attitudes remain the same. The structures that permit them to feel the way they do and thrive still remain. The consequences that are currently being wheeled out (a short term PR measure) are not sustainable for too long. There is still a system creaking from social woodworm and nothing will changed until this is fixed.
I'm sure I have more but as I don't expect to receive answers to these, I'll reserve my energy and leave it there for the sake of my health.
I see the courts are handing out sentences (albeit paltry) for virtually every crime related to the riots. What's changed? What I mean by that is for years now the British public as been crying out for action on crime and all the time we've been given short shrift. Politicians have pointed to all sorts of reasons why it couldn't happen while we despaired and our criminal element grew stronger. Suddenly, Dave and the other cronies have had some bad press and all that has changed. I don't think the MP's have been rewriting the law from the various villas around the world so these powers are not new and yet suddenly we can apply them. Hmmm, would it be evidence that there has been deliberate application of brakes on magistrates from nipping this kind of thing in the bud.
I understand all police leave has been cancelled. Aside from questions about how sustainable this is over the longer term, I wonder what it says to the public when politicians are asking them to do more with less, when it turns out they will get paid for having their holidays interrupted to return and talk this subject to death for their own political ends. There are several appeals going on across the Internet to raise funds for the mugged student and Aaron Biber, the barber in his 80's who got turned over. How many of those MP's will redirect their pay for today to such causes to show they really mean those platitudes each of them will utter when they stand up in Parliament today?
What exactly does water cannon deployed on 24 hours notice mean? Does it mean asking the rioters to come back to the same place the next night so you that they can get hosed down. Is this what the Home Secretary meant by policing by consent? The oddity of this is that it gives the impression that tough talk was for show, in which the PM can sound tough making promises that he is never really going to have to deliver on.
My final question is what now? Yes it has gone quiet and I hope it remains that way but in reality nothing has changed. All that has happened is the perpetrators of this have retreated to sleep off their indulgence and to rest their shoulders from the huge chip on them they've been carrying around. Their attitudes remain the same. The structures that permit them to feel the way they do and thrive still remain. The consequences that are currently being wheeled out (a short term PR measure) are not sustainable for too long. There is still a system creaking from social woodworm and nothing will changed until this is fixed.
I'm sure I have more but as I don't expect to receive answers to these, I'll reserve my energy and leave it there for the sake of my health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)