Flirting with socialism. The Euro’s last option.

With imminent election of Hollande in France (unless he attacks members of the public, he will be the next President of France) and his plan to reopen the Fiscal Treaty – the EU is warming to the idea of growth and spending. As the markets rightly point out, Europe has no money. Absolutely none. Greece, Spain and Portugal are bankrupt – and Italy is not far off.

The European Union is unable to bail these countries out and the Central Bank is against Eurobonds (Germany objects); this has created massive tensions due to Europeans resorting to democracy-which the EU doesn’t like-to elect parties and politicians, who disagree with Germany.

So the French will like to try a little of bit of socialism to fix the crisis; spend some money and increase the debts, to obtain growth. The problem is stimulus spending eventually runs out and the fiscal reduction becomes even more painful; majority of European countries are unable to pass much needed reforms due to political unwillingness and are surprised that our economies are unproductive. Most of us lack the capacity to spend.

Spending, taxing the wealth creators and employing vast amounts of public sectors will not solve the crisis; it will make it much worse. Governments nationalising the banks, and effectively running them, is the quickest way of creating chaos in the financial markets. The problem is the currency, the Euro, not the policies or actions of governments; but there is no political appetite or will reduce the size of the Eurozone membership. Hollande’s plea for a sprinkle of socialism is the final throw of the dice and, in all honesty, will not work.

France and Spain are the only countries, whose populations are sceptical towards free markets, and will succumb to extreme opposition within the European Union. Most notably Britain and Germany. Both the Fiscal Treaty and Hollande’s Plan B are dead, along with the Euro and the European Union.

We might flirt with socialism for a few months, but the death warrant has been signed.

Read Full Post »

There is only one choice: Boris

I hoped the Liberal Democrats would have opted for a ‘wild card’ candidate; Boris was vulnerable and his reelection was not guaranteed. The selection of the divisive and tribal Ken Livingstone should have made the Mayor of London election between Tories and Liberals. Alas, though, it was not to be. Instead, we got a repeat of the 2008 election.

Brian Paddick manifesto was uneventful and contained no genuine radical options; it was, as I described at the time, no different from Boris Johnson.  His police reforms are much welcomed, and I hope whoever becomes Mayor adopts them, but Brian was a weak candidate in 2008 and is still a weak candidate in 2012.

When Oona King announced her intention to seek the Labour nomination I was surprised, but interested. For once, Labour had learned to adopt a ‘unity’ approach and reject the tribal politics of the past – but, Ken won. Why on Earth Labour reselected a candidate, who already served two terms as Mayor and lost in 2008, is beyond me. It was a missed opportunity to make Boris a one term Mayor. This mornings YouGov poll has seen Boris increase his lead to 4% and 70% of Liberal Democrats will reward him with their second preference vote.

Other polls give Boris leads from 6+%. Ken’s politics of division has assured he will struggle to obtain support outside of the Labour party. Criticising the Jewish community, courting the Islamists of Tower Hamlets and calling for public hanging of bankers have formulated into one of the most negative political campaigns in British history. His name no longer appears on leaflets and press releases – that’s how toxic Ken has become.

Ironically, I don’t live in London; if I did, though, I would most certainly be voting for Boris Johnson on Thursday. There is really no other choice, which should reflect on how bad this Mayor of London election has been.

Read Full Post »

UKIP wins Seaford council by-election

Seaford Town Council:

UKIP 428, Tory:365, Lib Dems: 344, Lab: 105

With local elections coming, this could be a sign; realistically, if this allege UKIP surge is correct, the party should expect 50 – 100 gains (especially since over 800 candidates are standing). With a growing anti-establishment sentiment among the electorate, significant gains should be almost guaranteed.

Read Full Post »

BBC/GlobeScan poll: British views on capitalism and free markets

BBC, in partnership with global polling company GlobeScan, have conducted a international poll into capitalism and free markets. Here are the results for the United Kingdom:

• 23% think free market capitalism is flawed and a new economic system is needed
• 56% free market capitalism has problems – these can be addressed through more regulation
• 15% free market capitalism works well – efforts to increase regulation will make it less efficient

How fairly have economic benefits and burdens been shared in your country in the past years? (UK ONLY)

• 3% very fairly
• 34% somewhat fairly
• 36% not very fairly
• 25% not at all fairly

Thankfully, Britain does not wish to abandon capitalism for a different system – the majority of us do understand the benefits of a free market system; we just want it to be slightly fairer. A reformed and better regulated free market is what us Brits would like and our politicians are currently promoting “responsible capitalism”. Yet, we do not feel the wealth has been shared and the entire potential been explored enough; this is, of course, not a promotion of socialist style redistribution of wealth but a proclamation of fairer, lower and better taxation for the United Kingdom.

This poll does conclude that the Greens, Respect and other parties wishing to replace Labour will be restricted to the margins and protest voters – unless they embrace free markets. The majority of Britons do not reject capitalism, we just want a reformed free market.

It is glad to see we are not a nation of secret socialists.

Read Full Post »

Russell Brand goes to Parliament

An interesting day at Parliament, yesterday.

Read Full Post »

Leveson: Politicians and Power

The world is surprised to understand that politicians, and their advisors, have direct access to corporations and lobby on their behalf. Jeremy Hunt’s special adviser, Adam Smith, has literally just resigned (as I type) over clandestine discussions with News International – without permission.

But this is not confided to Jeremy Hunt, his department, this government; it is widespread. News International are, probably, not the only corporation able to get special treatment from special advisers and civil servants. Sadly, this is how politics operates in the United Kingdom. The executive is not accountable to Parliament; unlike most democracies, our Cabinet members (including the PM), are not verified by Parliament. All positions of power, within government, should be transparent/accountable to Select Committees and MP’s because government has become too powerful in the United Kingdom.

Politicians feel they need good public relations and image to be elected, not issues. And, because of this warped sense, party leaders and senior figures desire to court the media like prostitutes. You and I are not relevant. Even though this is a democracy and Parliament is meant to enshrine our representative democracy, certain MP’s have no interest in protecting it.

And we wonder why voter turnout is so low? We have no choice. Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are all identical and none of them are saints. Why else would Labour only condemn Hunt last night and not mention the relationship between special advisors and News International? Please don’t answer that question, it is rhetorical.

But, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, comes out very, very, very badly. SNP lobbied the UK government and ministers on the behalf of external individuals. Just displays how unified the avatars of power are and their interests are all the same, regardless of who is in power.

The Parliament we love, with the principles and values its based on, have been greatly undermined in the last 30 years decades. Leveson have just confirmed the truth.

Read Full Post »

Voluntary socialism vs the “Big Society”

Ed Miliband has begun discussing community politics and devolving political parties to their traditional 19th century existence of town hall and tedious early social workers. Cameron, on the other hand, proposes this ‘Big Society’; a society based on voluntarism and compassion, enforced by the state.  The government, though, has failed to inspire and define this new concept and how the ‘Big Society’ would facilitate decentralisation of the state and expansion of the voluntary sector; this new version of a voluntary society is a void, a ghost routinely haunting the political arena  on specific dates.

The new Labour strategy is community politics, which is covered quite deeply in their local election manifesto. Miliband aims to break the influence of the union general secretaries, regarding party finance, and deal directly with the individual members and build voluntary unions. Within local government, the party desires to expand the growth of co-operatives, mutuals, charities and community groups; all of which will be exclusively independent and voluntary. The local authority will not coerce or select ideal candidates of ‘success’, unlike the ‘Big Society’.

This vision is not equivalent or identical to Cameron’s version; it is voluntary socialism, something the original socialists pioneers of Britain envisioned. It was those principles which built the modern Labour party, which were later abandoned by the statist approach of Clement Attlee. Under the leadership of Cameron, the Conservative party has tried to hijack the philosophy of co-operatives and mutuals and, you could argue, failed to reinvent them as conservative principles. As James Delingpole commented, the ‘Big Society’ is just a form of state coercion and forcing individuals to embrace voluntarism; which contradicts the very definition of ‘voluntary’.

Either way, Britain will experience decentralisation of politics and power and expansion of community activism. In a free and polycentric society, there is room for both. But for the ‘Big Society’ to work, it must be voluntary – the government cannot be selecting acceptable candidates. And Miliband’s voluntary socialism has to ensure the creeping attitudes of control and manipulation do not pervert local communities and hijack decision making.

Two interesting and opposite ideas that are set to dominate British politics in the long term.

Read Full Post »

Liberals should consider supporting Hollande – even though it hurts.

Hollande, the Socialist front runner, won the first round ballot of the French Presidential election. Along with Sarkozy, who finished second, he goes into the final round in two weeks time; many expect Hollande to become the first Socialist President since Mitterrand.

The biggest story of the night was the rise of Le Pen and the Front Nationale. 20% was the vote received by the far right; the best for a nationalist party since the 1930s. Her significant vote share means Hollande and Sarkozy will have to court her – even though the Socialists have guaranteed support from other left wing parties and, possibly, the liberals.

Sarkozy said the Front Nationale voters have genuine concerns; UMP are set to appeal to far right voters in order to gain a second term. Because of this, we are desperate for Hollande to win. Yes, he is a socialists and I disagree with his views but a President, backed by the far right, is a disaster for Europe and Britain. A fare worse prospect than a socialist.

Hollande promises to enshrine secularism in the French Constitution and, unlike Sarkozy, has no intention of running a platform of fear to win an election. Both candidates are equally against my politics, but I’d prefer a Hollande than a Front Nationale backed Sarkozy.

This is one occasion, and probably the last, where I shall back a socialist to win.

Read Full Post »

Labour referendum on EU membership pledge?

Patrick O’Flyyn, in his recent Express column, has confirmed the likelihood of Labour offering a referendum on British membership of the European Union in their next manifesto. Ed Miliband concluded a quite obvious “democratic deficit”, which will inevitably have to be resolved by a referendum.

Britain will have to choose to stay or leave the Union; I would proudly vote for succession. But, a genuine question, do we trust Labour to deliver on this promise? would eurosceptics be willing to vote for a possible Ed Miliband administration that sought to address the European problem – even if it meant aligning ourselves to a socialist?

Personally, I do not-for one second-believe this pledge is honest and is just naked short-term populism.

Read Full Post »

The Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill

Key recommendations:

• The Committee, on a majority, agree that the reformed second chamber should have an electoral mandate, provided it has commensurate powers (para 6.1).

• If the reformed House is to be elected, 80% of members should be elected and 20% nominated. The size of the House should be 450 and members should serve for 15 year non-renewable terms (6.17-19, 6.31-34).

• The Committee agrees with the government’s proposal for election under the STV system. In addition, it recommends that voters who wish to vote for candidates by political party rather than individually should be free to do so. The Committee recommends that the STV system currently used in New South Wales should be adopted. This allows voters not only to rank individual candidates, but to vote by party and also to rank the parties so as to control where “excess” party votes are allocated (6.25-6.26).

• A majority of the Committee recommends that the decision to elect members of the House of Lords should be submitted to a referendum(6.87).

• Election of 80% of a reformed House will make the House more assertive and affect the balance of power between the Houses in favour of the House of Lords. But a majority of the Committee consider the existing conventions and other pillars on which Commons primacy rests would suffice to ensure its continuation (6.3, 6.10-6.11).

• The Committee agrees that conventions governing the relationship between the Houses cannot be legislated for and that such conventions will evolve further once the House of Lords is reformed (6.6-6.7, 6.13-6.16).

Full report from Parliament can be found here

Read Full Post »