Reposted from the LPUK blog:
On the 1st of January 2009, the Libertarian Party celebrated its first Birthday. From its inception at the beginning of 2008 support for the Libertarian ideals laid out in our manifesto has been steadily growing, and today we have taken the first major steps from that single national structure into regional Branch formations.
We have formally launched the South East Branch this morning, to add to the one we have in the North West, and new Branches throughout the country will soon follow, as will the names and details of our first PPC's and Local Election Candidates, which will continually be updated as new candidates are taken through our selection process.
As this country slips further into Authoritarian rule the support for Libertarian ideals has never been stronger, or more vocal.
However, as people who are coming to LPUK are telling us in no uncertain terms, the Conservative Party has no room for Libertarian thought, Cameron has made clear that he will be continuing on the present path to a Federal Europe and will not be walking with Libertarians , Osborne is providing more Keynesian economics, and William Hague has refused to commit to a referendum if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. In other words, more of the same under a disguised 'nudge'.
Those who have come to us from the LibDems tell of horrific infighting, with the SDP controlled leadership squeezing the Liberal element out of the party, marginalising them at branch level and suggesting that there is no room in the modern LibDem party for them. The LibDems have lost their Liberal roots and become the Social Democratic party, set to continue where Brown leaves off. More of the same.
Both LibDems and Conservatives are on a collision course with the British people, 57% of whom have now indicated that they no longer wish to remain in the EU. They are looking for a genuinely free society, services that work, lower taxes, much smaller government, less nannying and laws that are Made in Britain.
The voters of Britain are not stupid people, they are not happy about being led on the road to Authoritarian rule, and they are more than aware that the Libertarian Party is the only party that offers a direct rebut to the path we are currently on.
Like all political parties the Libertarian Party relies on donations to keep it going. We urge you to make generous contributions to allow us to continue to mount the challenge, to provide the voters of Britain a voice for Liberty against this backdrop of Authoritarian politics.
To those who continue to spin the State line that we are still a free country, I would suggest a quick review of the facts that would tell you otherwise.
Iain Dale published Damian Green's wife's top ten tips on what to do if your home is being searched by the Police. How has it come to pass that we now consider this an every day event?
How has it come to pass that we consider the list below every day events?
Ballot Boxes are interfered with
Voting registers go missing
The Police can kill innocent people and get away with it
You can be put in prison for 42 days on pure suspicion
You can be put in prison indefinitely on the word of a politician
The State can torture people
Your children are monitored at School by Political Officers
Your children's fingerprints are taken without your consent by willing teachers
Their behaviour is logged on a State database for their entire lives
Your innocent fingerprints, iris scans and biometrics are held by the State
You do not have the right to remain silent
You are watched on 4 million CCTV cameras
You may not photograph the Police
The media is controlled by the State
You do not have the right to protest peacefully
Curfews exist for entire communities
Your travel movements are logged and monitored
Who you vote for is logged and monitored
Your shopping habits are studied and logged by the StateY
our emails and telephone conversations are recorded by the State
Your Bank and financial details are accessed by the State
Your passport can be withdrawn at the whim of the State
Government agencies can use lie detector tests on you.
List of life in the UK from Old Holborn.
Is this how a free country works?
If like me you think the answer is No, then join the Libertarian Party, help us to work to give you those lost freedoms back.
If you want to make a donation to LPUK so we can continue to stand for your rights, and I will be very honest here, yes, we need your money, click here.
If you want to stand at Local Elections or as a Member of Parliament yourself to make that difference, then email us at contact@lpuk.org.
No, we don't have all the answers, anyone who tells you that they do is lying, but we believe that we are putting forward far more credible options than the Conservatives or the LibDems.
The world is a very fluid place at the moment, there is an air of uncertainty over Economics, military posturing, the real threats of terrorism, energy security, food security and much more as governments around the world are forcing us into Global governence, Global financial control, unelected european control.
We are looking for your help to get the LPUK ready for the Local Elections and then General Elections, we intend standing, we intend fighting this battle at the ballot box, for we are no longer prepared to stand by and watch our Country destroyed from the inside out.
n.b. LPUK will not be standing in the European Elections. Until the people of Britain have made a decision on EU political union through a referendum, we consider that the European Parliament is not a legal institution and we shall not provide it false respectability.
by Ian Parker Joseph, leader of the UK Libertarian Party
Monday, 20 April 2009
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Rest in Peace
Wherever we are on the political spectrum, I think we can all feel immensely for the loss of David Cameron and his family. I send my condolences and sympathy. RIP Ivan Cameron.
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Travesty of the Edinburgh Trams
Building continually delayed, costs soaring, contractors going on strike, road congestion almost unbelievably bad - say hello to the Edinburgh Trams project!
From first-hand experience, I can attest to the scheme's major public inconvenience. For much of last year I worked as a barman in La Tasca in the Omnicentre in Edinburgh, and I would come from my dad's flat in Leith. Normally, you just jump on the 22 or 16 and you do the journey in 10/15 minutes. When the tramworks were in full-swing, you were looking at something closer to 40 minutes at times. That is, 40 minutes to get from the bottom of Leith Walk to the top. Sweating like a sardine in a tin for forty minutes, packed on a 22 bus, the summer sun beating down and making you feel as though you were in a greenhouse, did not leave me smelling particularly fragrant for my tapas-eating and sangria-swilling customers.
May I recommend this excellent post on the newly-discovered A Place to Stand blog (I really do need to get a blogroll in order). In it, he writes:
The author of the blog, Neil Craig, goes on to link to a letter he got published in The Scotsman, reflecting on the mad amount of public money that has already gone into the trams scheme:
What is it about public works projects here that they are never completed on time, on budget - indeed, tend to be instead massively delayed and massively overpriced? I pose that not as a rhetorical question, but an open one - can someone please try explaining this to me? The real travesty is that those in charge will not - we've once again been robbed blind of our money.
From first-hand experience, I can attest to the scheme's major public inconvenience. For much of last year I worked as a barman in La Tasca in the Omnicentre in Edinburgh, and I would come from my dad's flat in Leith. Normally, you just jump on the 22 or 16 and you do the journey in 10/15 minutes. When the tramworks were in full-swing, you were looking at something closer to 40 minutes at times. That is, 40 minutes to get from the bottom of Leith Walk to the top. Sweating like a sardine in a tin for forty minutes, packed on a 22 bus, the summer sun beating down and making you feel as though you were in a greenhouse, did not leave me smelling particularly fragrant for my tapas-eating and sangria-swilling customers.
May I recommend this excellent post on the newly-discovered A Place to Stand blog (I really do need to get a blogroll in order). In it, he writes:
"Last Friday the contractors on Edinburgh's tram project said they were going on strike for extra money. In the tradition of air traffic controllers they had chosen to announce this strike immediately. Prince's St, Edinburgh's main street, had been closed to traffic to let them work.Quite so - £600 million as it stands already, with these contractors striking to demand another £80m? What is all this?
The whole project has always been a boondoggle - the local council are putting up £100 million & the Scottish government £500 m to put a single tramline from Leith in the east to the airport in the west. Since it goes through the main streets it will do absolutely nothing to reduce congestion there, its ostensible purpose, simple removing buses but replacing them with trams, whose use & routes are less flexible. But trams are, for ideological reasons (publicly owned & working off electricity made by fossil fuels [& nuclear} while buses use fossil fuel directly) more politically correct.
The sensible options would either have just been to let the free market provide
bus services, which do all the same stuff except costing £600 million & digging up the streets, or an automated overhead monorail system which would cost more, or at least more than the necessary cost of trams, to build but, being automated, far less to run. At least half the cost of buses is the driver. Obviously sensible options were not desired."
The author of the blog, Neil Craig, goes on to link to a letter he got published in The Scotsman, reflecting on the mad amount of public money that has already gone into the trams scheme:
"There has been little discussion of the fantastic level of these costs. Melbourne built the Box Hill extension, 2.2km, opened in 2003, for £12.5 million; and the Vermont South Extension of 3km in 2005 for £13.5m. On that basis the Edinburgh tramway, at 18.5km, should be costing about £105m pounds or indeed quite a lot less because of economies of scale. British public works have a long record of being grossly overpriced. Those in charge refuse to provide any explanation of this and they should."
What is it about public works projects here that they are never completed on time, on budget - indeed, tend to be instead massively delayed and massively overpriced? I pose that not as a rhetorical question, but an open one - can someone please try explaining this to me? The real travesty is that those in charge will not - we've once again been robbed blind of our money.
Friday, 20 February 2009
Well said ...
Brian Monteith, in a well-crafted article for The Scotsman, hands out some pearls of wisdom on the economic crisis and the folly of the proposed solutions, describing politicians as trying to hose us down with kindness, but unintentionally drowning us:
Mr Monteith has neatly illustrated the deficiencies of President Clinton's 1995 Community Reinvestment Act and its ensuing consequences - political action mimicked across the pond here in the UK too. That's not to put the blame for our current predicament entirely on Old Liberal Bill Clinton - this crisis emerged from several different factors. But, to my mind, those who point at our current economic woes as evidence of the crisis of capitalism and the bankruptcy of free market theory are missing something rather crucial: there hasn't been a free market, and most certainly not in the housing and banking industries, which even before the crisis hit were two of the most heavily-intervened-in sectors of the economy in the US. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, were quasi-governmental insitutions , changing mortgage-lending standards for political reasons. I didn't hear any of the blowhard Keynesians now dominating the airwaves telling us that something might be amiss in the economy - no, it was free-market libertarians like US Congressman Ron Paul and economist Peter Schiff who predicted this crisis, years ago.
Mr Monteith ably sums up by saying:
He's right, and thus it's doubly depressing that all our mainstream politicians, from First Minister Alex Salmond up to Prime Minister Brown all the way up to President Obama are proposing nothing but more and more expensive and inventive ways to make a bad situation worse than it already is.
"The most inappropriate people to be bankers are practising politicians, for they are in the market for votes – not the market for nurturing money. If money were water, bankers would ration it through careful control of its supply, using its price to ration it to customers.
Politicians just get the hosepipe out and try to soak as many people as possible, preferably in front of the cameras whilst uttering meaningless words like stability, long-term, boom and bust (the end of). There are lots of policy wonks with ideas for how politicians can shower us with our own money – geeks bearing gifts that we have paid for!
One American example of how politicians make bad bankers explains how we are all in this mess. Back in the Nineties, during the glorious reign of Bill Clinton, the president exerted a great deal of pressure on the government-subsidised mortgage providers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide easy loans to people who previously had been considered too high a risk. Clinton was in government and he was there to help. So, in 1999, the threshold was dropped and the sub-prime mortgage market expanded exponentially.
To cope with the greater demand, the US housebuilding industry expanded, borrowing more from the banks to finance the expansion.
Needless to say, people that bankers had previously thought too risky to lend to eventually showed why they had been categorised as sub-prime and started to default on their mortgages.
Foreclosures multiplied, the construction boom collapsed and a lot of "bankers" were left with egg on their faces. They had gone against all their own banking disciplines and the bailout of banks followed – organised by the very politicians who had caused the problem. Once again, they were there to help us."
Mr Monteith has neatly illustrated the deficiencies of President Clinton's 1995 Community Reinvestment Act and its ensuing consequences - political action mimicked across the pond here in the UK too. That's not to put the blame for our current predicament entirely on Old Liberal Bill Clinton - this crisis emerged from several different factors. But, to my mind, those who point at our current economic woes as evidence of the crisis of capitalism and the bankruptcy of free market theory are missing something rather crucial: there hasn't been a free market, and most certainly not in the housing and banking industries, which even before the crisis hit were two of the most heavily-intervened-in sectors of the economy in the US. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, were quasi-governmental insitutions , changing mortgage-lending standards for political reasons. I didn't hear any of the blowhard Keynesians now dominating the airwaves telling us that something might be amiss in the economy - no, it was free-market libertarians like US Congressman Ron Paul and economist Peter Schiff who predicted this crisis, years ago.
Mr Monteith ably sums up by saying:
"Winston Churchill once observed that "for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle". I believe the same goes for borrowing. You cannot solve a debt-fuelled crisis by borrowing more – but that's what Obama and Brown are trying to do.
Nor can we take solace from Alex Salmond – his solution is to drown us with kindness too. His hose is undoubtedly smaller than Gordon's – but size doesn't matter – and we shall be drowning in Alex Salmond's kindness.
The politicians should be turning their hoses off, letting the addicts dry out and lessening our burden so we can lift ourselves, and each other, up from this recession – from outside that bucket."
He's right, and thus it's doubly depressing that all our mainstream politicians, from First Minister Alex Salmond up to Prime Minister Brown all the way up to President Obama are proposing nothing but more and more expensive and inventive ways to make a bad situation worse than it already is.
Friday, 23 January 2009
Adherence to the EU or public safety?
I (in a post on my other, rather less restrained blog), and others, including the estimable (but equally, or perhaps more unrestrained) Devil's Kitchen, have already been heavily critical of the proposed EU working time directive. Now we have another reason to be opposed:
The Fire Brigades Union, as to be expected, branded it "scaremongering." Hmm, seems like a fairly realistic, facts-based observation of the situation by Mr Dalziel to me, but then I'm just a blogger. I mean, it's only 321 out of our 391 fire stations that are staffed by part-time retained fire fighters, that's not that many, is it?
EU directives should never fly in the face of public safety; I wish the UK had retained its opt-out from this one.
"Scotland's fire service is under threat from EU working hours regulations, according to a senior fire officer.MEPs have been criticised for ending the UK "opt out" of the Working Time Directive, which prevents people from working more than 48 hours a week.
Grampian Chief Fire Officer David Dalziel said the rules would prevent fire stations using retained staff.
In Scotland, most fire stations are staffed by part-time fire fighters who have other jobs.
Mr Dalziel said restrictions on how long people can work could spell the end of the retained service and jeopardise safety.
It would also have a huge cost implication with budgets soaring to pay for more full-time staff, he claimed."
The Fire Brigades Union, as to be expected, branded it "scaremongering." Hmm, seems like a fairly realistic, facts-based observation of the situation by Mr Dalziel to me, but then I'm just a blogger. I mean, it's only 321 out of our 391 fire stations that are staffed by part-time retained fire fighters, that's not that many, is it?
EU directives should never fly in the face of public safety; I wish the UK had retained its opt-out from this one.
Ah Kenny, it gets better ...
Following on from my previous post on everyone's favourtie authoritarian nationalist dunce of a Scottish politician, Kenny MacAskill, it seems some in other quarters aren't too happy with him either:
Of course it's ludicrous, Mr MacAskill's a busy man! Never mind that knife crime is one of the most pertinent violent-crime issues of the moment, in the whole of the United Kingdom, never mind just Scotland. Rather than be seen to be actively participating in a knife crime summit (how ludicrous!), oor Kenny is busy drafting a bill to criminalise fetishists ...
"Attacks on Scotland's justice secretary for not attending a knife crime summit have been dismissed as "ludicrous"."
Of course it's ludicrous, Mr MacAskill's a busy man! Never mind that knife crime is one of the most pertinent violent-crime issues of the moment, in the whole of the United Kingdom, never mind just Scotland. Rather than be seen to be actively participating in a knife crime summit (how ludicrous!), oor Kenny is busy drafting a bill to criminalise fetishists ...
Extreme Sexual Images?
I'm two days late with this one, but I thought I'd pass comment nonetheless, on this article, relating to an issue I alluded to in a previous post - the legislation against "extreme sexual images" being brought forward in the Scottish Government's Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill.
Admittedly, it almost seems eminently reasonable at first glance. But, of course, the problem is, if "images" of rape or extreme sex are in fact performed or recorded between two consenting adults, this law is essentially interfering with what private individuals choose to do among themselves. If it could be proved that images of "rough" or "extreme" sex were not consensual, then that would be a wholly different matter, but that's not going to happen in most cases.
So the civil liberties question here is that of the Scottish government trying to regulate what individual adults watch in privacy. Are people who are, for example, into bondage, going to be criminalised for their fetish even if no one is harmed by it, with a possible 3 years spent in the nick for their "crime?"
Kenny MacAskill's justification is that of the typical moralising statist:
It's abhorrent because the government says so. It's not a "victimless crime" either, because the government says so. Actually, it's not a crime at all, because the bill's not been put into law yet, so in his pomposity Mr MacAskill is getting a little ahead of himself, but that's besides the point.
It is, in the main, victimless, in that those who work in the porn trade, whether amateur or professional, do so out of choice. The minority that may be forced into it are undoubtedly suffering terribly and deserve justice, but that is what the police should be there for - as opposed to politicians criminalising the many.
But, Kenny tells us, what is being portrayed is not "erotic art - it's fundamental abuse of an individual." Besides from the fact that I never knew Mr MacAskill was such a keen observer and expert on "erotic art", although I'm sure such knowledge would intrigue the tabloids, he fundamentally misunderstands what constitutes "fundamental abuse of an individual". Abuse of the individual is, pure and simple, when he or she is coerced by external forces, and thus the sanctity of his/her free choice violated. If someone consents to being in a bondage or rough sex scene in a hardcore porn flick, how is he/she fundamentally abused? It's nonsense. Mr MacAskill is justifying this proposed law based on his morals and value-judgements - that this type of erotica isn't "erotic art", that it is "abhorrent". Well why are your morals better than mine, Kenny? I say people should be able to watch whatever images they want in the privacy of their homes, so long as no one else is harmed. If they are, that's a different kettle of fish, but that's the job of law enforcement to sort out, not for the law itself to brand all extreme fetishists as evil criminals.
Ironically, then Susan Smith enters into the article, on the government's side, explaining how it didn't take her long to find "scenes of brutality" on the internet, but proves my point about victimless crime by saying:
Before, of course, going on to moralise about how terrible it is that these videos nonetheless are glorifying rape. Firstly, you know what, I think it's pretty nasty myself too. But you know what I'm going to do as a result of not particularly being a fan of extreme BDSM porn (Bondage, Domination and Sado-Masochism)? Here, wait for it, drum roll ...
Not watch it.
Because at the end of the day, it is fantasy, images, supplying a very miniscule niche of (in my opinion - not that it matters) very weird people with what they want, in the vast majority of cases doing no harm to anyone else. I'd rather they spent their time watching imaginary rape as opposed to going out and doing it themselves. And I'd rather the government weren't moralistically claiming the authoritarian right to snoop in on people's homes for what they watch within the privacy of them. Why is imaginary rape worse than imaginary murder? What's next, banning all Jason Statham films because they glorify shooting people and battering them to death?
Becky Dwyer, spokeswoman for CAAN, hits the nail on the head:
Perhaps Mr MacAskill, expert on "erotic art" that he is, can tell us why he hasn't identified the sites depicting real abuse and gone after them to the full extent of the law, as opposed to making our lonely spotty lanky-haired teenagers watching bizarre stuff on the net wanted criminals?
It's depressing how, day by day, the SNP seem to be no less - in fact, probably more - nannying and authoritarian than their Labour predecessors. Why bother with independence? What would be the damn difference?
"DOWNLOADING images of rape and possessing other forms of "extreme" pornography will be punishable by up to three years in prison under new laws to be unveiled next month, The Scotsman can reveal.
Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, has for the first time revealed details of his proposed crackdown on owning hardcore pornography that he claims is sexually and physically abusive and degrading to women."
Admittedly, it almost seems eminently reasonable at first glance. But, of course, the problem is, if "images" of rape or extreme sex are in fact performed or recorded between two consenting adults, this law is essentially interfering with what private individuals choose to do among themselves. If it could be proved that images of "rough" or "extreme" sex were not consensual, then that would be a wholly different matter, but that's not going to happen in most cases.
So the civil liberties question here is that of the Scottish government trying to regulate what individual adults watch in privacy. Are people who are, for example, into bondage, going to be criminalised for their fetish even if no one is harmed by it, with a possible 3 years spent in the nick for their "crime?"
Kenny MacAskill's justification is that of the typical moralising statist:
"We are intending to send out the message that this is frankly totally abhorrent. This is far from a victimless crime. Previously you could close down bookshops; now everybody has access to the internet. What is being portrayed in a number of these sites and DVDs is not erotic art – it's fundamental abuse of an individual and to consort with it is to support it."
It's abhorrent because the government says so. It's not a "victimless crime" either, because the government says so. Actually, it's not a crime at all, because the bill's not been put into law yet, so in his pomposity Mr MacAskill is getting a little ahead of himself, but that's besides the point.
It is, in the main, victimless, in that those who work in the porn trade, whether amateur or professional, do so out of choice. The minority that may be forced into it are undoubtedly suffering terribly and deserve justice, but that is what the police should be there for - as opposed to politicians criminalising the many.
But, Kenny tells us, what is being portrayed is not "erotic art - it's fundamental abuse of an individual." Besides from the fact that I never knew Mr MacAskill was such a keen observer and expert on "erotic art", although I'm sure such knowledge would intrigue the tabloids, he fundamentally misunderstands what constitutes "fundamental abuse of an individual". Abuse of the individual is, pure and simple, when he or she is coerced by external forces, and thus the sanctity of his/her free choice violated. If someone consents to being in a bondage or rough sex scene in a hardcore porn flick, how is he/she fundamentally abused? It's nonsense. Mr MacAskill is justifying this proposed law based on his morals and value-judgements - that this type of erotica isn't "erotic art", that it is "abhorrent". Well why are your morals better than mine, Kenny? I say people should be able to watch whatever images they want in the privacy of their homes, so long as no one else is harmed. If they are, that's a different kettle of fish, but that's the job of law enforcement to sort out, not for the law itself to brand all extreme fetishists as evil criminals.
Ironically, then Susan Smith enters into the article, on the government's side, explaining how it didn't take her long to find "scenes of brutality" on the internet, but proves my point about victimless crime by saying:
"While the videos I found were clearly not of real rapes..."
Before, of course, going on to moralise about how terrible it is that these videos nonetheless are glorifying rape. Firstly, you know what, I think it's pretty nasty myself too. But you know what I'm going to do as a result of not particularly being a fan of extreme BDSM porn (Bondage, Domination and Sado-Masochism)? Here, wait for it, drum roll ...
Not watch it.
Because at the end of the day, it is fantasy, images, supplying a very miniscule niche of (in my opinion - not that it matters) very weird people with what they want, in the vast majority of cases doing no harm to anyone else. I'd rather they spent their time watching imaginary rape as opposed to going out and doing it themselves. And I'd rather the government weren't moralistically claiming the authoritarian right to snoop in on people's homes for what they watch within the privacy of them. Why is imaginary rape worse than imaginary murder? What's next, banning all Jason Statham films because they glorify shooting people and battering them to death?
Becky Dwyer, spokeswoman for CAAN, hits the nail on the head:
"There are sites out there depicting real abuse; evidence of real crimes being committed. Instead of going after those, catching the perpetrators and putting an end to real harm, the government has gone for the easy option of criminalising pictures of mostly legal activity and demonising a bunch of adults whose main crime is the desire to interact with one another in the privacy of their own homes."
Perhaps Mr MacAskill, expert on "erotic art" that he is, can tell us why he hasn't identified the sites depicting real abuse and gone after them to the full extent of the law, as opposed to making our lonely spotty lanky-haired teenagers watching bizarre stuff on the net wanted criminals?
It's depressing how, day by day, the SNP seem to be no less - in fact, probably more - nannying and authoritarian than their Labour predecessors. Why bother with independence? What would be the damn difference?
Expenses
Today, The Scotsman is reporting on the publication of MSP expenses for last year - or at least it was kind of published, although "much of the detail" of extra claims "was hidden", apparently. Super. Nice and transparent.
Of course, all this was the cue for the parties to start sniping at each other, trying to claim moral superiority for having milked the taxpayer slightly less than opposing parties, but really just ending up looking pathetic and petty.
A Lib Dem spokesman had the gall to scoff at Jim Mather, Enterprise Minister, for spending £256 quid on books, saying:
This, when six out of the top ten claimants were LibDems, and their leader Tavish Scott at numero uno with extra claims of £54,000. The bleated excuse is that Mr Scott has to fly to and from Shetland. So, of course, does Alastair Allan, MSP for the Western Isles, but somehow he's managed to only spend £36,000.
Hell, at least Mr Mather is reading; he might learn something. Though perhaps not, if, as reported, he's sticking to autobiographies of luminaries of waste-of-space economic buffoonery such as Alan Greenspan.
The Scotsman also informs us that:
Everyone's favourite fraudster, i.e. Wendy Alexander, appears to have been at it again. As for raised eyebrows, I can tell you that both of mine are so raised that they've crossed my hairline and are no longer visible.
What the hell's with the more-than-quadrupling of the party leaders' allowance? Oh yes, I forgot, the details "are hidden."
Nice to know our lawmakers in Holyrood are tightening their belts along with the rest of us.
Of course, all this was the cue for the parties to start sniping at each other, trying to claim moral superiority for having milked the taxpayer slightly less than opposing parties, but really just ending up looking pathetic and petty.
A Lib Dem spokesman had the gall to scoff at Jim Mather, Enterprise Minister, for spending £256 quid on books, saying:
"We now know why Jim Mather hasn't been speaking in parliament much. He's been too busy reading these books he's asking the taxpayer to pay for."
This, when six out of the top ten claimants were LibDems, and their leader Tavish Scott at numero uno with extra claims of £54,000. The bleated excuse is that Mr Scott has to fly to and from Shetland. So, of course, does Alastair Allan, MSP for the Western Isles, but somehow he's managed to only spend £36,000.
Hell, at least Mr Mather is reading; he might learn something. Though perhaps not, if, as reported, he's sticking to autobiographies of luminaries of waste-of-space economic buffoonery such as Alan Greenspan.
The Scotsman also informs us that:
"There were some eyebrows raised at some of the claims, in particular a five-fold increase in the party leaders' allowance from £5,776 in 2006-7 to £27,193 in 2007-8.
Much of the detail of this was hidden, but parliamentary sources said that most of the extra claims were down to support costs for former Labour leader Wendy Alexander and ex-Liberal Democrat leader Nicol Stephen."
Everyone's favourite fraudster, i.e. Wendy Alexander, appears to have been at it again. As for raised eyebrows, I can tell you that both of mine are so raised that they've crossed my hairline and are no longer visible.
What the hell's with the more-than-quadrupling of the party leaders' allowance? Oh yes, I forgot, the details "are hidden."
Nice to know our lawmakers in Holyrood are tightening their belts along with the rest of us.
Sunday, 18 January 2009
A Very Belated Happy New Year from Scottish Libertarians!
From Scottish Libertarians, and more generally the UK Libertarian Party, I wish you all a very belated Happy New Year, and hope it brings you good things and goodwill. I must apologise for my distinct lack of presence over the last few weeks - I've been on what might be described as an extended festive hiatus, darting between Glasgow (where I work and study), Edinburgh (where a lot of my friends are), North Berwick (the closest thing I have to a hometown), and my family home in the East Lothian countryside. And I think it's probably fair to say that, from Christmas Eve to about the 2nd January, when I wasn't travelling around I was probably drunk. Then me and a couple of friends piled into a car and when on a little road-trip jaunt down to Manchester and then Newcastle on the 3rd, which was very good fun.
Now though, I'm back at Uni and all's set to continue this blogging lark.
Now though, I'm back at Uni and all's set to continue this blogging lark.
So, with the Libertarian Party having just past its first-year anniversary, I'll give you my take on how things have been going, for us and the country, and the highs, lows, trials and tribulations of a nascent political party.
I think, overall, it's been a good year for libertarians in the UK. We now have a party we can belong to without having to hold our noses. Many libertarian-minded people talk about trying to change bigger parties (Tories, LibDems, UKIP etc) from the inside, but I'm fairly doubtful about the possibilities of managing to do that. I feel the statism is far too entrenched in every one of the big three parties, plus the SNP in Scotland, for significant change towards a more libertarian stance to occur. I'd personally rather be member #78 of the Libertarian Party, small as we may be, than number 20002 of the Tories. The influence I, and every member of us who wants to be active in the party, can wield over policy discussion, events organisation, media co-ordination, allocation of funding, etc etc, dwarfs beyond all comparison any such influence I could have in any other party - libertarians in other parties tend to be sidelined as "maverick" types. Such proximity to the day-to-day running of the party that we have as members really means it can feel like our party. A strong sense of internal democracy has arisen from the debate and discussion we have on, well, pretty much everything, and every member who is willing to put his two cents in has his opinion valued equally. Knowing the power each of us has in the party, and in turn, the responsibility, really does motivate you to get on and do whatever you can in whatever time you can find to get active, and participate.
I've amazed myself with the amount of time and effort I've been willing and able to put in for the party, from organising the formation of Scottish Libertarians, to blogging, to leafletting, to trawling the streets of the East End of Glasgow to get 10 signatures for our (failed) attempt to get on the by-election ballot, to going to party meetings and get-togethers in England, to chatting about the party in the pub. It's a great feeling to find a cause you believe in like that, where you're willing and motivated to work for something greater. It's sometimes difficult to gauge general public opinion, esconced as I often am in blogosphere, but I do think libertarianism is finding a wider audience, and the word, at least, is entering more into the public consciousness, as well as some of the ideas. David Davis came out and said, bizarrely, that "The only Libertarian Party is the Conservative Party" - shortly following our invitation to Davis to join us after his pro-civil-liberties stand on 42 days detention . David Cameron felt the need to come out in his party conference and expressly tell us "I am not a libertarian," before totally misinterpreting the basis of the philosophy. This, as opposed to saying "I'm not a socialist", which his grassroots may have found a little more reassuring.
There is widespread disillusionment with a lot of what has been going on in this country; I think we're seeing the beginnings of an anti-government backlash from the bottom-up, centred around ideas of individual freedom, with our money, our private transactions and activities, our personal data, and our civil liberties. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm far too optimistic. But only time will tell.
We saw widespread support for David Davis when he resigned and won re-election based on an anti-Big-Brother-state platform. We've seen continuous opposition to our expensive and wrong military adventures abroad. We've seen revulsion at Gordon Brown, well, in general, but mostly at his profligate spending, high-tax regime, and his disregard for liberty and democracy, primarily, I think, through the non-referedum on the Lisbon Constitution.
It's quite clear that this government has been in power for too long. Bloated, corrupt, illiberal, incredibly wasteful, deceitful - we've seen an opposition MP detained by 20 anti-terror police and taken into custody for 9 hours; we've seen anti-terror legislation abused to financially interfere with Iceland; we're seeing our Treasury embarking on a ludicrous policy of economic recovery that merges ultra-Keynesiam with a sort of refined Mugabinomics. We need to face facts: you can't spend your way out of a recession. Gordon's spending can explain in large part why Britain is so far down the shitter next to our first-world neighbours. In fact, we actually have no money left to spend anyway, we can barely fiddle our interest rates any lower, and borrowing from abroad is going to become increasingly difficult as our national credit card approaches "Maxed Out." The solution from the government? Turn on the printing presses, or as its known institutionally, commence "quantatitive easing". And then, pardon my french, but we're really b*ggered.
In the 1930's, Hayek won the Nobel Economics Prize for showing how Roosevelt's policies prolonged and deepened the Great Depression. The current downturn is almost a textbook case of the central premise of Austrian economics - the most well-known being Ludwig von Mises - the theory of the business cycle, which explains how central banks use their levers of power - the power to set interest rates - and induce artificial booms and busts through the flow of credit (or lack thereof), which cause "bubbles" - distortions in the markets where the easy credit is most used during the period of credit expansion (in the case of this recession it was primarily in real estate, although we also saw it in commodities too) and which, eventually, pop, as the housing bubble did following the Federal Reserve, and other banks around the world, tightening their monetary policy - i.e. raising rates.
Yet, it seems, nothing has been learned, and the policies of Brown and his fellow "progressives" - Barack Obama, for example - such as slashing rates, spending, borrowing - are on course to take us to, like a film director releasing a terrible Hollywood sequel into the cinemas, "The Great Depression II: This time it's really bad." If we see any sort of recovery as a result of these policies, it will, I think, merely be a brief and illusory one. I pray I'm wrong, but adherents to Austrian economics usually aren't. One such man, Ron Paul, who ran for President, has been predicting with striking accuracy for years the crisis we're now in. Peter Schiff is another one.
Couple this gloomy economic outlook with the ascent of "communitarianism" - a sort of Rousseau-ish ideology, brother of socialism, that sacrifices individual liberty and democracy for the good of the community. Very prominent in the EU, who have taken it to a grander scale, willing to sacrifice the sovereignty of nations for the good of the "European community" - no matter what we peasants think. In the UK, our personal details are stored on massive databases, easily abused and "misplaced", with some of the most god-awful data protection in the world. We have been branded an "Endemic Surveillance Society" by Privacy International, with unaccountable faces watching our steps on city streets, one camera for every 14 of us. We have more CCTV than any other nation on Earth - and no, not per head. More.
Things don't look pretty. But I think this is where the backlash has come, and will continue, to come from.
One of the most successful things we did in the past year was our 1984 campaign on November 5th, when we co-ordinated the delivery of a copy of George Orwell's prophetic work to every MP. The campaign escalated into something much bigger than we could have predicted, with well over a thousand books going out, only 71 actually sent by party members. Jacqui Smith, apparently, got six copies! Despite our best efforts, only 3 MPs mentioned they'd received it - Glasgow's own Tom Harris, plus Kerry McCarthy and Paul Flynn. News of the campaign flew around the net (just google it) but sadly the Mainstream Media didn't pick up on it, though I rather think they won't pick up on much we have to say or do until we have some sort of electoral presence.
Anyhoo, November 5th became Liberty Day, and on top of the 1984 campaign, some of our members, and some non-members, went on a little jaunt to Downing Street dressed all funny, and got stopped and searched by a squadron of PCSO's and Policemen - you can view the excellent photos from the day here.
It is things like this that make me think we, and the libertarian ideals, may have a future - the idea that you own yourself, that you are sovereign, and that you should be given the freedom to make the choices that affect you - not government bureaucrats - in what you consume, what you spend your own money on, what you do, how you look, and so on and so forth, provided you do not harm the reciprocal rights of others.
But it's not easy for the LPUK at the moment. We're, comparatively speaking, tiny. A few grand in the kitty - barely enough to run a Westminster or Holyrood by-election campaign. Our membership, though it has been increasing steadily, has not risen at a pace some of us had perhaps hoped. On the media front, as I've alluded to it has been slim pickings for us. Alex Singleton at The Telegraph dismissed us as "undermining liberty", but what is it that they say about all publicity? Some of our leadership have been involved in a few radio interviews, and one televised debate on Sky News, all of which you can browse here, and the claim to fame of yours truly was my published letter on behalf of the Party in my local paper back home. We've also had a few stalled attempts at election campaigns, but now I've think we know what we're doing on that front, and we plan to stand candidates in local elections later this year - and, if Big Brown deigns it fit sometime this year that democratic mandates should come before his "long-term vision", perhaps in a general election too.
As the Beatles were fond of saying, it's a "long and winding road, tha-at leads, to your door (Gordon)." Who on Earth can possibly say if we'll ever get there? On Yahoo Political Q&A forums, someone posed the question, no idea who:
To which one person replied: "No, I don't think so."
Oh well.
But funnily enough, our immigration policy is one that seems to have disgruntled a few, as although for us the end-game is an open borders policy, we currently favour a points-based system until the welfare state is overhauled. For this, we've been dubbed "ex-BNP members in disguise", "scum", "closet racists in denial", and "patently NOT Libertarian."
Which illustrates rather neatly that you cannot please everyone, and certainly not every Libertarian - I think the formation of the Party in the first place was a monumental achievement, as Libertarians are renowned for being notoriously difficult to organise. "Herding cats" is, I believe, the common meme. We have our Randians, or Rights Theorists, our Consequentialist Minarchists, our Republicans, our Monarchists, our Anarchists, our kind-of-Lib-Dem-supporters, our pro-choicers, our anti-abortionists, our lefty-libertarians and our righty-libertarians, and probably plenty more I've neglected to mention. But such is LPUK life.
All this said, it was a good year for us. A long, hard year, yes, but I think we're all thoroughly enjoying ourselves - when we're not undergoing one of our periodic bouts of anxiety at the state of the nation. Our last meeting was our AGM in York, which was a fun affair - a constitutional amendement there, a speech here, and then a long stop-off in the pub afterwards, where it emerged that our Party Leader, eloquent and passionate though he may be, is no pool shark - I slaughtered him on the pool table.
What's ahead for Scottish Libertarians? Well hopefully, as The Joker put it, "there's a lot of potential for aggressive expansion." I hope to get us registered as an official regional branch of LPUK in the coming months, and to increase membership, continue to try and establish the blog, and engage in debate with people across the political spectrum. I'm under no illusions that libertarianism has a particularly wide audience in Scotland at present, but it would to change that, even incrementally. In the short-term, watch this space for posts on, among other things, a proposed meet-up for Scottish Libertarians, probably in Edinburgh, and probably sometime in February, and also a post or two on the incoming Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill in Scotland - I received some generously informative e-mails from Consenting Adults Action Network (CAAN) on passages in the Bill concerning extreme pornography that seem distinctly unreasonable and authoritarian.
In the meantime, if you support us but aren't yet a member, hell, why not gies us yer tenner and join? I can do with all the help I can get!
Or if you fancy helping boost our funds, hell, feel free!
Onwards to 2009!
Dan Vevers
Scottish Libertarians
As the Beatles were fond of saying, it's a "long and winding road, tha-at leads, to your door (Gordon)." Who on Earth can possibly say if we'll ever get there? On Yahoo Political Q&A forums, someone posed the question, no idea who:
"Do you think the UK Libertarian Party will get very far?
I mean, they are in favour of free immigration. Isn't that something
the island doesn't need. Already, people are saying that too many people are
moving to Britain. Wouldn't that go against the libertarian party?"
To which one person replied: "No, I don't think so."
Oh well.
But funnily enough, our immigration policy is one that seems to have disgruntled a few, as although for us the end-game is an open borders policy, we currently favour a points-based system until the welfare state is overhauled. For this, we've been dubbed "ex-BNP members in disguise", "scum", "closet racists in denial", and "patently NOT Libertarian."
Which illustrates rather neatly that you cannot please everyone, and certainly not every Libertarian - I think the formation of the Party in the first place was a monumental achievement, as Libertarians are renowned for being notoriously difficult to organise. "Herding cats" is, I believe, the common meme. We have our Randians, or Rights Theorists, our Consequentialist Minarchists, our Republicans, our Monarchists, our Anarchists, our kind-of-Lib-Dem-supporters, our pro-choicers, our anti-abortionists, our lefty-libertarians and our righty-libertarians, and probably plenty more I've neglected to mention. But such is LPUK life.
All this said, it was a good year for us. A long, hard year, yes, but I think we're all thoroughly enjoying ourselves - when we're not undergoing one of our periodic bouts of anxiety at the state of the nation. Our last meeting was our AGM in York, which was a fun affair - a constitutional amendement there, a speech here, and then a long stop-off in the pub afterwards, where it emerged that our Party Leader, eloquent and passionate though he may be, is no pool shark - I slaughtered him on the pool table.
What's ahead for Scottish Libertarians? Well hopefully, as The Joker put it, "there's a lot of potential for aggressive expansion." I hope to get us registered as an official regional branch of LPUK in the coming months, and to increase membership, continue to try and establish the blog, and engage in debate with people across the political spectrum. I'm under no illusions that libertarianism has a particularly wide audience in Scotland at present, but it would to change that, even incrementally. In the short-term, watch this space for posts on, among other things, a proposed meet-up for Scottish Libertarians, probably in Edinburgh, and probably sometime in February, and also a post or two on the incoming Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill in Scotland - I received some generously informative e-mails from Consenting Adults Action Network (CAAN) on passages in the Bill concerning extreme pornography that seem distinctly unreasonable and authoritarian.
In the meantime, if you support us but aren't yet a member, hell, why not gies us yer tenner and join? I can do with all the help I can get!
Or if you fancy helping boost our funds, hell, feel free!
Onwards to 2009!
Dan Vevers
Scottish Libertarians
Saturday, 20 December 2008
To the Point
I'm a little late in coming across this post, but it's a good one, from a certain McChatterer (very good reading actually):
Answer: it wouldn't.
There is absolutely no valid reason for not devolving tax-raising powers to Scotland. The Barnett Formula is entirely discredited as a means of fairly and equally distributing public expenditure, and does more to sow seeds of divisiveness between the members of the Union than fiscal autonomy - and thus, responsibility - ever could. The English moan about it being too much (which, in terms of proportion, is true) and the Scottish moan about our hands being tied, hindering policy, and enabling them to use the UK as a scapeboat.
Look, the Scottish Parliament has legislative power over health, education, policing; we have our own legal system too - why can't we use our money to supply our needs? It makes no sense making the English, Welsh and Northern Irish pay for Scotland along with us.
The centralisation and excess of power in Westminster does need to be rolled back. I'm pro-Union personally, but I know that the greater the power of the central government, the less accountable to each individual and the more it can scam us and take more of our economic and social freedom with impunity. And in the end, money is power. Control over the Treasury is the real key to power in government.
So Calman's conclusion depresses me, in that the only reason I can see for the status quo being maintained is pure power; power for power's sake. This government have been in power for far too long.
"What do Alberta, Bavaria, Queensland, Quebec, New South Wales, Colorado, Catalunya and Nova Scotia have in common? Their regional or state assemblies all have more power than the Scottish Parliament. Do these powers threaten the existence of the nation they belong to? No - and in some of these cases, the devolved powers are necessary to keep the nation state together.
So why would Scotland gaining fiscal autonomy wreck the union?"
Answer: it wouldn't.
There is absolutely no valid reason for not devolving tax-raising powers to Scotland. The Barnett Formula is entirely discredited as a means of fairly and equally distributing public expenditure, and does more to sow seeds of divisiveness between the members of the Union than fiscal autonomy - and thus, responsibility - ever could. The English moan about it being too much (which, in terms of proportion, is true) and the Scottish moan about our hands being tied, hindering policy, and enabling them to use the UK as a scapeboat.
Look, the Scottish Parliament has legislative power over health, education, policing; we have our own legal system too - why can't we use our money to supply our needs? It makes no sense making the English, Welsh and Northern Irish pay for Scotland along with us.
The centralisation and excess of power in Westminster does need to be rolled back. I'm pro-Union personally, but I know that the greater the power of the central government, the less accountable to each individual and the more it can scam us and take more of our economic and social freedom with impunity. And in the end, money is power. Control over the Treasury is the real key to power in government.
So Calman's conclusion depresses me, in that the only reason I can see for the status quo being maintained is pure power; power for power's sake. This government have been in power for far too long.
Friday, 19 December 2008
smoking ban 0 , choice 1
smoking ban 0 , choice 1
Youth smoking continues to rise
Almost a third of young adults in Scotland smoke. The number of young people smoking in Scotland has returned to a level last seen nearly 10 years ago, according to a report by health officials.The survey revealed nearly a third of people between 16-24 are smokers. In 2004 the number of young smokers in Scotland had fallen to just 25% but by 2007 that figure was 31%.The NHS Health Scotland and Scottish Public Health Observatory study revealed that in the 16 to 19 age group, females are more likely to smoke - while the highest rates are found among young offenders and care leavers. In the 16-19 age group, young women generally have higher smoking rates than young men. In the 20-24 age group, male rates exceed female rates. In 2006, 28% of 16-24 year olds in Scotland were regular smokers: an estimated 166,000 young adults.
Some specific groups in the population have much higher smoking rates than the average. Four in five young offenders smoke - 2000 young adults - and two thirds of care leavers - 1000 young people a year.
More proof prohibition does not work. It just makes smoking seem more of a 'forbidden fruit' and increases the trend among people, particularly the young, to see it as a 'cool' and 'rebellious' thing to do. Laws such as this often have reverse effects - the government and its apologists would do well to remember the law of unintended consequences. Yet still the government is pushing for more bans, more laws regulating tobacco and alcohol.
They don't seem to acknowledge this policy isn't working. They seem to just have their heads in the sand on this one. They want to 'normalise' smoking, politician double speak for engineering an atmosphere that stigmatises people for their habit. Ministers seem absolutely sure of their right to push their agendas on all of us and for us to conform to the non smoking 'perfect citizen' model. This is health fascism. This further shows the disastrous effect of letting special interest groups dominate policy and the effect this has of fragmenting society into those who weld the law against the smokers and the oppressed smokers themselves.
The government wants to drastically reduce smoking by 2012 but it wouldnt dare ban smoking, and of course it has a vested interest in making sure smoking rates don't fall too fast; the tax revenue it generates for the state is just too vast.
In 2008 the fascists now sport dietary healthy eating charts and do yoga, instead of swastikas and jack boots. This may seem like an exaggeration but it's all heading that way. Yes, you may enjoy your 'guilty pleasures' right now like chocolate and caffeine and 'unhealthy food' but how long is it till they clamp down on those too?
Youth smoking continues to rise
Almost a third of young adults in Scotland smoke. The number of young people smoking in Scotland has returned to a level last seen nearly 10 years ago, according to a report by health officials.The survey revealed nearly a third of people between 16-24 are smokers. In 2004 the number of young smokers in Scotland had fallen to just 25% but by 2007 that figure was 31%.The NHS Health Scotland and Scottish Public Health Observatory study revealed that in the 16 to 19 age group, females are more likely to smoke - while the highest rates are found among young offenders and care leavers. In the 16-19 age group, young women generally have higher smoking rates than young men. In the 20-24 age group, male rates exceed female rates. In 2006, 28% of 16-24 year olds in Scotland were regular smokers: an estimated 166,000 young adults.
Some specific groups in the population have much higher smoking rates than the average. Four in five young offenders smoke - 2000 young adults - and two thirds of care leavers - 1000 young people a year.
More proof prohibition does not work. It just makes smoking seem more of a 'forbidden fruit' and increases the trend among people, particularly the young, to see it as a 'cool' and 'rebellious' thing to do. Laws such as this often have reverse effects - the government and its apologists would do well to remember the law of unintended consequences. Yet still the government is pushing for more bans, more laws regulating tobacco and alcohol.
They don't seem to acknowledge this policy isn't working. They seem to just have their heads in the sand on this one. They want to 'normalise' smoking, politician double speak for engineering an atmosphere that stigmatises people for their habit. Ministers seem absolutely sure of their right to push their agendas on all of us and for us to conform to the non smoking 'perfect citizen' model. This is health fascism. This further shows the disastrous effect of letting special interest groups dominate policy and the effect this has of fragmenting society into those who weld the law against the smokers and the oppressed smokers themselves.
The government wants to drastically reduce smoking by 2012 but it wouldnt dare ban smoking, and of course it has a vested interest in making sure smoking rates don't fall too fast; the tax revenue it generates for the state is just too vast.
In 2008 the fascists now sport dietary healthy eating charts and do yoga, instead of swastikas and jack boots. This may seem like an exaggeration but it's all heading that way. Yes, you may enjoy your 'guilty pleasures' right now like chocolate and caffeine and 'unhealthy food' but how long is it till they clamp down on those too?
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Yawn ...
Directly-elected health boards? Who cares?
The SNP do, because it was in their manifesto, and they haven't fulfilled any of their manifesto pledges since they scrapped Graduate Endowment, and that was some time ago now. This one probably seems easy enough.
But who else cares?
"The idea of direct elections has the backing of unions but has found little support from health boards themselves."
Unions dig it; the health boards don't. Hmm.
"Sixteen-year-olds will be able to vote in the elections."
Yeah, and who of them is going to vote to elect their local health board? They have Playstations to play, and homework to do, and blue wkd's to serruptitiosly guzzle at underage teen parties. More to the point, this is opposed by the Electoral Commission and has aroused "serious concerns" from the related Scottish Parliamentary committee.
Further still, as Mary Scanlon, Tory health spokesperson, put it:
"Barely a quarter of those who responded to the consultation were in favour of these elections, and only four of Scotland's 32 councils back the plans."
Basically, no one cares! No one will vote! Nobody wants NHS Scotland Ancient-Athens-stylee. Why waste money on these pilots? What insights are they expecting to gain by launching these seven-year pilots, other than that the NHS remains just as frigged if the interfering busybodies have the vote of a few interested townsfolk than if they have no vote at all?
The Lib Dems have the real doozy though, from health spokesman Ross Finnie:
"Liberal Democrats believe that direct elections are not the best way of improving health board accountability. That is why we have called for alternatives like getting local councils more involved in running local health services."
Please, Ross, do tell me all about the general medical expertise and experience of hospital-management endowed upon our country's local councillors. They should leave local health services well alone, and leave it to the people who actually know what they're talking about - i.e. medically-trained personnel. Get the meddling politicians out of there!
The SNP do, because it was in their manifesto, and they haven't fulfilled any of their manifesto pledges since they scrapped Graduate Endowment, and that was some time ago now. This one probably seems easy enough.
But who else cares?
"The idea of direct elections has the backing of unions but has found little support from health boards themselves."
Unions dig it; the health boards don't. Hmm.
"Sixteen-year-olds will be able to vote in the elections."
Yeah, and who of them is going to vote to elect their local health board? They have Playstations to play, and homework to do, and blue wkd's to serruptitiosly guzzle at underage teen parties. More to the point, this is opposed by the Electoral Commission and has aroused "serious concerns" from the related Scottish Parliamentary committee.
Further still, as Mary Scanlon, Tory health spokesperson, put it:
"Barely a quarter of those who responded to the consultation were in favour of these elections, and only four of Scotland's 32 councils back the plans."
Basically, no one cares! No one will vote! Nobody wants NHS Scotland Ancient-Athens-stylee. Why waste money on these pilots? What insights are they expecting to gain by launching these seven-year pilots, other than that the NHS remains just as frigged if the interfering busybodies have the vote of a few interested townsfolk than if they have no vote at all?
The Lib Dems have the real doozy though, from health spokesman Ross Finnie:
"Liberal Democrats believe that direct elections are not the best way of improving health board accountability. That is why we have called for alternatives like getting local councils more involved in running local health services."
Please, Ross, do tell me all about the general medical expertise and experience of hospital-management endowed upon our country's local councillors. They should leave local health services well alone, and leave it to the people who actually know what they're talking about - i.e. medically-trained personnel. Get the meddling politicians out of there!
This counts as a Parliamentary motion?
H/T Crap Holyrood Chat:
Why is such totally pointless partisan crap allowed to consume the time and resources of our Scottish Parliament? Can someone please enlighten me?
"S3M-03109 Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP): That the Parliament congratulates SNP councillor Anthea Dickson, elected on 11 December 2008 to serve the people of Kilbirnie and Beith Ward on North Ayrshire Council in
Cunninghame North constituency; notes that Anthea more
than doubled the SNP share of the vote from 23.4% in 2007 to 48.9% in 2008 with a swing of 15% from Labour; is aware that in 2007, even as the SNP won Cunninghame North by 48 votes, it polled 831 fewer votes than Labour in
Kilbirnie and Beith but has now polled 424 more; recognises that Labour has two branches in the area, including
Scotland’s biggest, two Labour clubs and that the MP Katy Clark has two offices in Kilbirnie and Beith, and believes
that if the SNP can win in such traditionally strong Labour territory it can look forward with confidence to even greater success elsewhere in the months and years ahead."
Why is such totally pointless partisan crap allowed to consume the time and resources of our Scottish Parliament? Can someone please enlighten me?
SNP Nurses
Now the SNP have been fairly shameless in their exploitation of Scottish nationalism - as regularly illuminated by Scottish Unionist - most recently in attempts to bring about a fairly unnecessary-sounding dot-scotland web domain, and a Scottish entry for the Eurovision Song Contest.
Now I have no quarrel with Scottish nationalists generally; indeed I consider myself one. I love my country, socialist warts and all. It is my personal view that Scotland is better off within the Union, but as a Libertarian I also subscribe to the view of voluntary secession - that if the Scottish people want to secede, they should be allowed to, by voting in a referendum. I would never presume to know that the Union is best for Scotland, and thus enforce my opinion by not letting the voice of the people be heard - it is just my opinion. Hell, I believe if an individual wants to secede from the State and declare his house the Fiefdom of Narnia, he should be allowed to.
So I have sympathy for the independence-driven nationalists out there: they clearly believe in their cause strongly, and if they manage to convince enough people that independence is the right way forward, I may disagree, but I'll accept it. I personally favour a strongly-localised Union with a central UK government basically limited to the core functions of national defence, some tax, immigration etc etc. I think most revenue-raising powers should be localised, as should all primary legislative powers - so I'll watch out the conclusions of the Calman Commission with a keen eye.
But what irks me about the SNP's exploitation of Scottish nationalism is the superfluousness of it. Is there any actual necessity for getting a Scot onto TV singing some crap song alongside the regular Polish, Latvian and Austrian wailers? Is it necessary to demand, as the SNP intend to do in their 2011 census, whether or not you consider your national identity to be either British or Scottish?
There's something almost indoctrinary about it, and in the latter's case, psychologically coercive, as well as intentionally divisive. What about someone like me, who considers himself a legitimate Brit and a legitimate Scot (and half-legitimately Welsh - I was born in Cardiff!)? There's loving-your-country style nationalism, and there's resentment-style nationalism - "we're Scottish and we dae like the English cuz ay Bannockburn"; that kind of thing.
Which is why, call me cynical, but I can't help but consider Nicola Sturgeon's unveiling of new NHS uniforms to be a little suspect:
Now I have no quarrel with Scottish nationalists generally; indeed I consider myself one. I love my country, socialist warts and all. It is my personal view that Scotland is better off within the Union, but as a Libertarian I also subscribe to the view of voluntary secession - that if the Scottish people want to secede, they should be allowed to, by voting in a referendum. I would never presume to know that the Union is best for Scotland, and thus enforce my opinion by not letting the voice of the people be heard - it is just my opinion. Hell, I believe if an individual wants to secede from the State and declare his house the Fiefdom of Narnia, he should be allowed to.
So I have sympathy for the independence-driven nationalists out there: they clearly believe in their cause strongly, and if they manage to convince enough people that independence is the right way forward, I may disagree, but I'll accept it. I personally favour a strongly-localised Union with a central UK government basically limited to the core functions of national defence, some tax, immigration etc etc. I think most revenue-raising powers should be localised, as should all primary legislative powers - so I'll watch out the conclusions of the Calman Commission with a keen eye.
But what irks me about the SNP's exploitation of Scottish nationalism is the superfluousness of it. Is there any actual necessity for getting a Scot onto TV singing some crap song alongside the regular Polish, Latvian and Austrian wailers? Is it necessary to demand, as the SNP intend to do in their 2011 census, whether or not you consider your national identity to be either British or Scottish?
There's something almost indoctrinary about it, and in the latter's case, psychologically coercive, as well as intentionally divisive. What about someone like me, who considers himself a legitimate Brit and a legitimate Scot (and half-legitimately Welsh - I was born in Cardiff!)? There's loving-your-country style nationalism, and there's resentment-style nationalism - "we're Scottish and we dae like the English cuz ay Bannockburn"; that kind of thing.
Which is why, call me cynical, but I can't help but consider Nicola Sturgeon's unveiling of new NHS uniforms to be a little suspect:
"The traditional doctors' white coat was consigned to history today as health secretary Nicola Sturgeon unveiled new uniform guidelines for NHS workers.
Medics in Scotland's hospitals and clinics will wear blue tunics instead of white coats."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
