Unable as I have been unable to secure any sort of answer to this out of my old mate Tom Hamilton (http://letsbesensible.blogspot.com), I am posting it here in search of answers from the blogosphere in general:
What specific policy of the Blair-Brown Government would anyone expect a Cameron Government to reverse, and how important is it?
And what specific policy of a Cameron/Osborne/Gove/Vaizey/Whoever Government would anyone expect, or even hope, to see reversed by a Miliband/Lammy/Balls/Cooper/Whoever Government, and how important is it?
Thursday, 3 May 2007
Can You All See It Now?
Was it Chesterton who said that some things are too big to see?
Turkey.
Of course.
There are several thriving Armenian churches in Tehran, but, oddly enough, none in Ankara or Istanbul, despite the Armenians' long history as "the loyal millet". Why ever might that be, do you reckon? And how should the attendees at those Tehran churches be preparing to greet their liberators, our NATO (and putatively EU) brothers, the Turks?
Turkey.
Of course.
There are several thriving Armenian churches in Tehran, but, oddly enough, none in Ankara or Istanbul, despite the Armenians' long history as "the loyal millet". Why ever might that be, do you reckon? And how should the attendees at those Tehran churches be preparing to greet their liberators, our NATO (and putatively EU) brothers, the Turks?
Benn's Britain
More from Neil Clark (http://neilclark66.blogspot.com), although he's wrong about the constitutional stuff near the end, but right about everything else:
Just imagine ...
Ten years ago Tony Benn became prime minister. As he prepares to step down after a decade at the helm of Britain's most socialist government of all time, it's timely to assess what his administrations have achieved.
The renationalisation of the railways, carried out in the first months of the Benn government, has been a great success. Britain now has an integrated public transport network whose standards are up to European levels, (buses were also bought into public ownership) with the billions of pounds of subsidy that were being paid to profiteering private companies being invested in the network. The government has also saved taxpayers money by cancelling the costly private finance initiative and by bringing "in house" all the services contracted out by the NHS and other government bodies. The renationalisation of the privatised utilities has also proved popular with the public, with prices of water, gas and electricity all dropping now that there's no fat cats to siphon off the profits. The nationalisation of North Sea oil and the setting up of a State Petroleum Fund to invest in long-term projects augurs well for Britain's future prosperity.
The Benn government set out to drastically reduce inequality, and has achieved this by the reintroduction of a new top rate of income tax, the introduction of new wealth tax on unearned income, a land tax and by generous increases in old age pensions and the minimum wage. Thanks to such redistributive policies, the gap between the rich and poor is now at historically low levels.
Britain's amicable withdrawal from the EU has saved the taxpayers billions of pounds too and prime minister Benn's idea of a "Commonwealth of Sovereign European States", with countries free to decide their own domestic policies, but agreeing to cooperate on matters of mutual interest has become increasingly popular with the millions of Europeans disenchanted with the undemocratic and overly-bureaucratic EU.
Benn's government's introduction of a fully elected second chamber has reinvigorated democracy, as have bi-annual elections, and the greater use of referenda. With more decision making power being restored to people themselves, voter turnout has returned to its highest postwar levels.
As impressive as its achievements on the home front have been, it's in the field of foreign policy where Benn's governments have arguably had their greatest impact. In 1999, it was Britain's implacable opposition to Nato military action that led to a peaceful solution to the incipient civil war in Kosovo. And in 2003, Britain aligned itself with France and Germany in opposing US plans to illegally invade Iraq. President Bush threatened to go it alone, but in the end, deprived of British support, he was forced to back down. Hans Blix's weapons inspectors finished their job and a costly and potentially catastrophic military conflict was averted. We will never know how many innocent lives were saved by the British government's anti-war stance. It could have been hundreds of thousands.
If the 1979 Election had not intervened, then Benn would have given effect to his scheme to do with Britain's oil revenue what Norway has done with hers, thereby giving herself the highest per capita income in the world. That could have been Britain. Benn's Britain.
Just imagine ...
Ten years ago Tony Benn became prime minister. As he prepares to step down after a decade at the helm of Britain's most socialist government of all time, it's timely to assess what his administrations have achieved.
The renationalisation of the railways, carried out in the first months of the Benn government, has been a great success. Britain now has an integrated public transport network whose standards are up to European levels, (buses were also bought into public ownership) with the billions of pounds of subsidy that were being paid to profiteering private companies being invested in the network. The government has also saved taxpayers money by cancelling the costly private finance initiative and by bringing "in house" all the services contracted out by the NHS and other government bodies. The renationalisation of the privatised utilities has also proved popular with the public, with prices of water, gas and electricity all dropping now that there's no fat cats to siphon off the profits. The nationalisation of North Sea oil and the setting up of a State Petroleum Fund to invest in long-term projects augurs well for Britain's future prosperity.
The Benn government set out to drastically reduce inequality, and has achieved this by the reintroduction of a new top rate of income tax, the introduction of new wealth tax on unearned income, a land tax and by generous increases in old age pensions and the minimum wage. Thanks to such redistributive policies, the gap between the rich and poor is now at historically low levels.
Britain's amicable withdrawal from the EU has saved the taxpayers billions of pounds too and prime minister Benn's idea of a "Commonwealth of Sovereign European States", with countries free to decide their own domestic policies, but agreeing to cooperate on matters of mutual interest has become increasingly popular with the millions of Europeans disenchanted with the undemocratic and overly-bureaucratic EU.
Benn's government's introduction of a fully elected second chamber has reinvigorated democracy, as have bi-annual elections, and the greater use of referenda. With more decision making power being restored to people themselves, voter turnout has returned to its highest postwar levels.
As impressive as its achievements on the home front have been, it's in the field of foreign policy where Benn's governments have arguably had their greatest impact. In 1999, it was Britain's implacable opposition to Nato military action that led to a peaceful solution to the incipient civil war in Kosovo. And in 2003, Britain aligned itself with France and Germany in opposing US plans to illegally invade Iraq. President Bush threatened to go it alone, but in the end, deprived of British support, he was forced to back down. Hans Blix's weapons inspectors finished their job and a costly and potentially catastrophic military conflict was averted. We will never know how many innocent lives were saved by the British government's anti-war stance. It could have been hundreds of thousands.
If the 1979 Election had not intervened, then Benn would have given effect to his scheme to do with Britain's oil revenue what Norway has done with hers, thereby giving herself the highest per capita income in the world. That could have been Britain. Benn's Britain.
It's MY Country
If there were to be a referendum in Scotland on independence, then who would have the vote in this referendum on the continued existence of my country? Everyone registered to vote in a Scottish constituency for elections to the House of Commons, including Irish Citizens? Or everyone registered to vote in elections to a Scottish local authority, including citizens of any country on earth? Yet most British Citizens would have no say whatever over the future of our country!
But again I say that even if a referendum were attempted by the Scottish Parliament, then it would be ruled ultra vires in the courts, if not at the behest of the Unionist parties, then at that of some Unionist millionaire or other. Counsel have probably already been retained. Indeed, I sincerely hope that they have been.
But again I say that even if a referendum were attempted by the Scottish Parliament, then it would be ruled ultra vires in the courts, if not at the behest of the Unionist parties, then at that of some Unionist millionaire or other. Counsel have probably already been retained. Indeed, I sincerely hope that they have been.
Tuesday, 1 May 2007
An English Parliament? No, This Instead
Good grief, imagine who would stand for an English Parliament (and yes, I am aware that I might well be eating my words if it were ever actually to be set up), or who would turn out to vote for such a thing! The latter would be very few in number, but that would only make them all the more dangerous. And the former would be "elected" from party lists. NOOOOO!
The SNP isn't going to win on Thursday, and support for independence itself in Scotland is now at pre-Braveheart levels, though continuing to decline. Plaid Cymru doesn't know what it thinks, and isn't worth thinking about.
So let's get on with rebuilding our country, Britain, with a strong Parliament and strong local government able to tell an over-mighty executive where to go, an over-mighty judiciary where to go, Brussels where to go, and Washington where to go.
That is what people in all parts of the United Kingdom want.
The SNP isn't going to win on Thursday, and support for independence itself in Scotland is now at pre-Braveheart levels, though continuing to decline. Plaid Cymru doesn't know what it thinks, and isn't worth thinking about.
So let's get on with rebuilding our country, Britain, with a strong Parliament and strong local government able to tell an over-mighty executive where to go, an over-mighty judiciary where to go, Brussels where to go, and Washington where to go.
That is what people in all parts of the United Kingdom want.
Why It has To Be Royal
Neil Clark (http://neilclark66.blogspot.com) is spot on:
It's not just because of her support for extending public ownership, her commitment to democracy, her opposition to the socially destructive Anglo-Saxon economic model, or even her good looks and all-round niceness. Segolene Royal deserves to win the French Presidential election because on the defining issue of our times- the Iraq war- she was right and her opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy was wrong. It's true that Sarkozy has admitted his error in supporting the illegal US-led invasion, yet the fact remains that if he- and not Jacques Chirac- had been President in 2003, France would have become embroiled in the catastrophic conflict. If Sarkozy could get Iraq wrong, why should the French people trust him to get other decisions right? The simple truth is that anyone who supported the Iraq war is either too stupid or too malevolent to hold public office. And that applies not only to French supporters of the war, like Sarkozy, but also to British ones like Gordon Brown and David Cameron.
It's not just because of her support for extending public ownership, her commitment to democracy, her opposition to the socially destructive Anglo-Saxon economic model, or even her good looks and all-round niceness. Segolene Royal deserves to win the French Presidential election because on the defining issue of our times- the Iraq war- she was right and her opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy was wrong. It's true that Sarkozy has admitted his error in supporting the illegal US-led invasion, yet the fact remains that if he- and not Jacques Chirac- had been President in 2003, France would have become embroiled in the catastrophic conflict. If Sarkozy could get Iraq wrong, why should the French people trust him to get other decisions right? The simple truth is that anyone who supported the Iraq war is either too stupid or too malevolent to hold public office. And that applies not only to French supporters of the war, like Sarkozy, but also to British ones like Gordon Brown and David Cameron.
Where Is Sobieski When We Need Him?
Turkey continues to worsen. The Army is ultimately in charge there, and only the threat of a full-blown coup keeps that country from becoming a full-scale Islamic Republic, with shrouded women, limb amputations, the lot.
For, of course, the Caliphate is a Sunni, not a Shi'ite, concept. On account of their very different historical experience, Shi'ites ordinarily have a highly sceptical view of the Islamic capabilities of the State. The situation now coming to an end in Iran, and the emerging situation in Iraq, are aberrations caused, in both cases, by clunking Anglo-American interference. Those who fear the Caliphate's revival should look to the last country to date to have it (unless you count the Taliban - also Sunni, of course), rather than to a form of Islam which has no concept of it.
Can anyone tell me when there has ever been a Persian army at the gates of Vienna? Or just how long it is since the Greeks were last expelled either from Iran or from the Persian Empire? Or which EU member-state (and Commonwealth country) Iran wishes to partition with a view to annexing the part of it where it already maintains an illegal rebel regime?
It is no surprise that the neoconservative supporters of the Wahhabi (Sunni, of course) interest in Yugoslavia have welcomed Turkey into NATO, and would welcome Turkey into the EU. Well, if there must be either a NATO or an EU at all (and I wish to God that there were neither), then Turkey has no proper place in either of them.
For, of course, the Caliphate is a Sunni, not a Shi'ite, concept. On account of their very different historical experience, Shi'ites ordinarily have a highly sceptical view of the Islamic capabilities of the State. The situation now coming to an end in Iran, and the emerging situation in Iraq, are aberrations caused, in both cases, by clunking Anglo-American interference. Those who fear the Caliphate's revival should look to the last country to date to have it (unless you count the Taliban - also Sunni, of course), rather than to a form of Islam which has no concept of it.
Can anyone tell me when there has ever been a Persian army at the gates of Vienna? Or just how long it is since the Greeks were last expelled either from Iran or from the Persian Empire? Or which EU member-state (and Commonwealth country) Iran wishes to partition with a view to annexing the part of it where it already maintains an illegal rebel regime?
It is no surprise that the neoconservative supporters of the Wahhabi (Sunni, of course) interest in Yugoslavia have welcomed Turkey into NATO, and would welcome Turkey into the EU. Well, if there must be either a NATO or an EU at all (and I wish to God that there were neither), then Turkey has no proper place in either of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
