Budget u-turns: utter, utter shambolic

Seriously, who is advising the Treasury?  It seems the whole entire budget is being reversed by the government, which will create significant forecasting problems for firms and the market in general. In the 26 years of my life I have never witnessed a budget PR disaster worse than this – it is starting to make the Major administration seem less chaotic.

This is the first time the coalition is genuinely vulnerable.

 

Read Full Post »

As I said back in 2010, drone strikes are illegal. Peter Oborne is right.

As I wrote, back in 2010, the drone strikes are potentially war crimes. For Left Foot Forward I laid out a critique against the policy and the negative fallout it was having on the war against terrorism; Peter Oborne has authored a comment in the Telegraph, arguing a similar position to me and the damaging effect on Western reputation.

Here is a brief segment of my thoughts back in October 2010;

Fundamentally all drone attacks violate international law and are war crimes. Firstly, NATO has not declared war on Pakistan or vice versa and Pakistani officials have protested to the UN regarding the increasing violation of their territory; secondly, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has questioned the legality of the operations and protested against the justification of targeting civilian areas to neutralise militants.

Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:

“Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organisations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”

Cooperation with Pakistan intelligence and military could lead to the capture or neutralisation of allege targeted individuals without the destruction of villages and civilian life. However, the United States has rejected the proposal with the CIA insisting a drone strike gives the element of surprise. It is not necessary to hold an entire geographical area responsible for the actions or associations of a single individual.

Destruction of entire villages, just to neutralise a single individual is absurd. During the Vietnam war, a general issued the historical known phrase “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it” and this quote is recalled to me every time a drone strike operation occurs.

We have increased generational and regional hatred towards Western nations because of the failure of proper oversight and accountability for this military engagement. Granted, Pakistan is not the most cooperative ally we have been blessed with and has sheltered key insurgents, including Bin Laden, from intelligence agencies. Some will argue this frustrating relationship justifies unconventional and clandestine operations, but it misses the point: slaughtering innocents for the prospect of one individual is unjustifiable and illegal.

“The end justify the means” approach will only damage our long term interests in the region. Afghanistan is once again become a nursery for terrorism, not its graveyard.

Read Full Post »

Building a liberal democracy and economy

A nation is successful and productive when the people are free; organised and collective countries, such as China, might experience phenomenal economic growth, but the perpetuation of continuous positive economic activity is vulnerable to civil unrest and rebellions. If the workers are revolutionary; seeking better pay, working conditions and basic democratic rights, it can effect the confidence of investors.

Unstable countries result in unstable markets.

Britain, unlike the rest of Europe, has a stable political system. The coalition experiences turbulences and periods of uncooperative behaviour, but it maintains a strong majority in the Commons. Opposition MP’s cannot influence the agenda without government rebellions. An unacknowledged reason for low bond yields. The British economy might not be comfortable and productive, but the government is not on the verge of collapse.

But a strong government does not necessarily equal a strong society; forgive me for paraphrasing Marx, but he was genuinely correct in asserting the state and society are separate entities and the state does not influence society. I think it is morally wrong for the state to create any ‘perfect’ society – predominately because Mussolini, Mosley, Hitler, Stalin and Mao actively sought to establish a utopia.

Of course, as history tells us, millions tend to die in the process. Brutally.

Building a liberal democracy should be organic; the population should not be coerced into accepting a state sanctify option. Where the people wish to be free – economic or social – then the people should be liberated. Individuals should influence the direction of society and economy; decision making should be devolved to local level – it would ensure the country is more stable during volatile markets.

I know this philosophy contradicts the title and advocates an argument against ‘building’ a certain outcome. Progressive Liberal Democrats believe a state can solve most problems and be a significant figurehead (which kinda contradicts liberalism), but fail to recognise the public tend not to like government-backed changed. The jury is still out on Swiss style direct democracy, with referendums trigging debates and potential legislation in Parliament. Pre-legislative referendums were used by some ungodly regimes to undermine the democratic process; rightly, many liberals are sceptical on its introduction.

As a party, we must lay out what we like a future Britain to be; unlike Labour and Conservatives we must ensure the building process, if you will, will be led by the people and not the state. The premise should be a nation, in which the individual is free both economically and socially, with society being as equally stable as the political system and the markets.

Read Full Post »

Britain has expelled the Syrian Charge D’Affaires

After 108 people were massacred in Syria’s Houla region, 49 of them children,  the Syrian Charge D’affaires and two diplomats have been expelled from the United Kingdom. Also, other European Union countries (France and Germany) have taken similar action against Syrian ambassadors.

Eyewitnesses to the massacre informed the BBC of possible pro-government shabiha militiamen involvement.

We can only hope to see the future arrival of the Syrian regime at the Hague to face war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Read Full Post »

David Lawley-Wakelin appears at Leveson

The protester heckling Blair, at Leveson, is none other than David Lawley-Wakelin (independent film maker); of course, people shouting “WAR CRIMINAL!” at Blair is nothing new – it’s almost a national tradition. A year or so ago, David made a documentary entitled “The Alternative Iraq Enquiry”

The Alternative Iraq Enquiry was borne from David Lawley-Wakelin, the freelance documentary filmmaker who was so incensed by the Iraq war that he made the bold statement from the audience of Question Time suggesting whether Tony Blair was a liar prepared to kill in the name of oil. On this premise, Lawley-Wakelin travels to Iraq to ask its citizens and military personnel whether they agreed with him.

Questioning the motives of the war and the responsibilities for its atrocities on both sides of the Atlantic, The Alternative Iraq Enquiry reaches the fundamental question: who is responsible for the atrocities of war?

 

Q & A Podcast with Director David Lawley-Wakelin

 

Directed by David Lawley-Wakelin
2010

[EDIT]

Here is an interview with David Lawley-Wakelin by George Galloway (discussion is on Iraq and Tony Blair)

Read Full Post »

An atheist appreciation of the King James Bible

Lord Bragg described the King James Bible as “the most influential book in western civilisation over the last 400 years” and I most certainly would not disagree with his assertion. It is a remarkable piece of English history and culture and, odd coming from an atheist, should be celebrated; purely on the grounds of literature and culture – spiritualism really is insignificant. You can marvel at the translation without associating yourself to monotheism.

Children, as well as society at large, should be taught to admire and respect our cultural heritage – even if it might be irrelevant to contemporary times. The use of the English language, in its more purest form, makes the King James Bible one of the most significant and inspirational books ever to be written. The 16th Century schism, better known as the Protestant Reformation, broke the traditional monopoly of the Catholic Church and the restriction of the Bible in the hands of the literate and educated priesthood; growth of the printing press and widespread publication of the Bible created a sense of individualism in religion. After the schism, the peasant could have a direct relationship with God and did not necessarily require a priest to participate as the medium.

When the King James Bible was published in 1611 and entered circulation, the social impact was revolutionary: it encouraged an illiterate population to read. Granted, it was not until 1870 and the introduction of government subsidised education which saw the drastic declines in illiteracy, but ‘the Word of God’ did stimulate many of the peasant classes to read.

For an atheist not to recognise and respect the cultural and social impact of the King James Bible (just because of God) is a highly absurd argument; rather puerile to oppose religion for the sake of opposing it. As I said previously, it is the most beautiful use of the English language and led to its growth as the most spoken language on this Earth; the King James Bible not only gave rise to the Anglosphere and England’s dominance on global culture and literature, but assisted in the birth of our modern England.

Even as an atheist, it sits proudly in my personal library.

Read Full Post »

Announcement: working on a book

A little brief update (for those who don’t follow me on Twitter):

I’m currently working on a book, regarding individualism in the 21st Century. Completed the introduction and starting to plan out the rest of the project. The next couple of weeks will involve me selling the idea to a publisher and consideration of a literary agent; but, yes, busy times are ahead.

I would be grateful for advice and tips. This is a big step for me and, of course, I’m rather nervous.

Read Full Post »

Grexit could bring down the entire European project.

Senior Government sources have told The Times that treaties governing the European Union will need to be re-written in the event of a Greek exit. [PoliticsHome]

In reality we should not be surprised; after the American Civil War, amendments were made to the US Constitution and the Union became more federalised. The major problem for Europe, unlike the United States, is re-writting treaties and discussion of powers shall trigger referendums in several countries – including the United Kingdom.

The current political climate is difficult for a ‘Yes’ vote to win; British voters, and Parliament, would probably take this opportunity to renegotiate membership. It is a guaranteed vote winning. British exit from the European Union is almost inevitable, if this Fiscal Union Treaty becomes a reality; the treaty will enter European law in 2017 and all members of the EU need to accept it or, potentially, leave.

This constitutional battle will begin when Greece finally leaves the eurozone.

Read Full Post »

Why I returned to the Liberal Democrats

Voluntary exile from party politics proved to have a positive impact on me; majority of the departure was spent expanding and subtracting elements of my philosophy, understand contemporary liberalism and the current state of British politics. In all honesty, it was rather beneficial to me. The past two months have seemed more or less equivalent to a year and the brief absence allowed me to rediscover why I become a Liberal Democrat in the first place.

I’m a contrarian; my positions are opposed to the majority and based on radicalism and dissent. As a passionate liberal, I strongly believe opinions should always be based on principles and not popularity. Democracy becomes dangerous if a political vanguard embeds itself within populism and the tyranny of the majority; a liberal party should never be afraid of speaking its minds – regardless of public opinion. And it is that reason why I originally joined Liberal Democrats. It was better, as a liberal, to be associated with a political party who took principled stands on civil liberties and personal freedom. We are the only party in Britain that cares about the greatest minority on Earth: the individual. There is no exclusive admiration for either markets or the state, liberals philosophically do not endorse collectivism.

And that is why I reapplied for membership; how can a liberal exist in parties that either favour using the state to dictate civil society or the economy? Liberals desire no control or influence on anyone or anything. Sure we acknowledge a role in ensuring freedoms, but never seek to use the power of the state to influence outcomes for our own political goals. The existence of liberalism is based primarily of the principle of expanding, and protecting, the freedoms and liberty of the individual; as Hayek once wrote, “What a free society offers to the individual is much more than what he would be able to do if only he were free. “ Conservatives and socialists do not recognise the individual and seek to define humans in collective terms; humans, by nature, will form communities themselves, but a liberal party has no reason for the state to enforce it. It is a organic and a conscious decision, free from outside influence.

Britain is a liberal country and it requires a strong liberal party. During this period of government we should stand by what is right, not what will get us elected. As I stated before, populism is a hideous platform and dishonest to the electorate. This liberal returned because I thought the state is too powerful, the corporate sector is too corrupt, Parliament is weak and no one dared to challenge the status quo. It was better to challenge the establishment as a member of a liberal party than outside of it; to those liberals in exile, like I was, it is time to come home. It is time to rejoin the Liberal Democrats and promote a true liberal Britain.

 

Read Full Post »

Persuasion vs Coercion

Following on from yesterday, I thought I would share this video a Twitter follower sent me (thank you @trewavas); Milton Friedman discussing coercion.

Read Full Post »