Jock's Place ...the ramblings of a Geo-Mutualist in Oxford http://jockcoats.me/atom/feed 2009-03-14T13:09:18+00:00 Mr Michael Martin http://jockcoats.me/mr_michael_martin 2009-07-01T16:45:01+01:00 2009-07-01T17:48:56+01:00 Jock A peerage! It seems that the last speaker to be forced from office, boss-eyed Sir John Trevor in 1693, was one of those who did not get a peerage following his fall from grace, and nor should Martin. Lord Martin of Milnburn or wherever it will be should never happen. It is an affront. We all know there are people who should never have been placed in the Upper House, having failed at their elected job or even run away from re-election, but Martin has been thoroughly disgraced in the process too.

Now, don't get me wrong, this is not snobbery, George Thomas was a man from a similar background and to me thoroughly deserved the last hereditary ranking peerage to be given to a former Speaker (even though it was pretty unlikely anyone was going to inherit it anyway). But at a time also when we need desperately to change both houses of parliament (or abolish both as I would have it) this is no time to be simply patting people on the back and kicking them "upstairs".

Not one member of the commons apparently dissented from the motion that Speaker Martin should be elevated. If they are so concerned about tradition and face that they cannot see that this is one occasion in which that tradition ought not to be honoured, given the extraordinary events that have led to this, none of them deserve to wipe their arses on that green leather benching.


]]> Balls-up: Schools white paper starkly highlights inefficiency and futility of public provision http://jockcoats.me/balls_up_schools_white_paper_starkly_highlights_inefficiency_and_futility_public_provision 2009-07-01T10:39:05+01:00 2009-07-01T11:49:04+01:00 Jock So, we've got another cunning plan from the Balls-up that is our government led education system. This being the government that, twelve years ago, came to power on the mantra "Education, education, education". The sad fact is that for all their central interference 40% of kids born at the beginning of this era of "Education, education, education" cannot read satisfactorily, despite the literacy hour, the special measures and all the money (for I don't begrudge them the fact that they have spent money, just that they seem incapable of spending it wisely) spent on academies and such like.

It seems that change in state provided services can not be incremental change, but complete u-turns. Yet turning around a system of this size and bureaucracy is like turning the proverbial super-tanker around - a long slow process which is, unless you know precisely your destination is behind you a waste of time and money that could have been used to deliver actual teaching to actual children. And all too often we see that once one public sector super-tanker has managed to turn round, another politician has another cunning plan and the process begins again. Well, you can see where that will get you in the long run - nowhere.

This, I am afraid, is the fate of all centrally planned public services. The government has to be seen to be being fair to everyone because it is the main provider. In fact of course it is usually fairer to those constituencies that elect members of the governing party as their representative, or ones they wish to win over next time. So it has to roll out massive change, perhaps even ignoring those who have managed to make good headway despite the dog's dinner of central policy because everyone's got to do things the same way otherwise it's a "lottery" provision or whatever.

There can be no meaningfully functioning market in ideas, pedagogic technique, innovative governance or anything else, because all must be seen to be delivering the same sort of product everywhere. Well this is nonsense. To those who claim that "only the state can deliver essential services like education" I ask looking at yesterday's announcement, and the many other tumultuous changes of direction over the past sixty years, how do you believe such a system can possibly ever be efficient and good at producing its end product - an educated citizenry?

Or, as Prime Minister Hacker said once to Sir Humphrey "do you mean to say that the state of schooling in Britain today is what the education department planned?"

We need change now, "change we can believe in", and the only change I can believe in is to remove schooling from state hands completely and encourage competition, both the quicker to spread the best teaching and learning practices and the better to create efficiencies in the system as a whole that will allow for more specialization and meaningful differences between schools and other training providers so that people can choose for their children the style, environment and outcomes that they, not the government, feel is appropriate.


]]> Stopped and Searched http://jockcoats.me/stopped_and_searched 2009-06-24T06:39:18+01:00 2009-06-24T07:56:34+01:00 Jock Well, what an unpleasant surprise I had last night. I was bloody stopped and me and my car searched by the police about midnight as I was returning from my friend's house in a nearby village. They said they were randomly targeting vehicles on these country lanes late at night, asked where I had been and where I was going and whether I had had a drink - I hadn't.

So he started on about whether I used drugs: I don't really know where that one came from, though he had seen my roll up fag and asked how long I had been smoking rollies. He asked me to get out of the car and to go and show my ID to his colleague and he had a quick nose around in the car. Now, I have got to be one of the untidiest person you could ever meet, but one think I do hate is people dropping litter and especially fag butts. So what I do when I am smoking behind the wheel, since my car came with no ashtray and lighter, is to twist the fag out out the window and then put the butts into my driver's side door pocket.

I don't know if I've done a proper clean out of the car since I bought it four years ago or so! I do usually empty out the big stuff in the car and do a general binning of the rubbish every so often but haven't done for a while. As a guide - he was asking about a spade in the back seat - which I put in there during the snow in December or whenever it was as I was driving up to my mothers and wanted to have one with me in case I broke down. Anyway - all this, notwithstanding my explanation that the fag butts were about my civic responsibility not to drop litter, made him decide to conduct a proper search of me and the car.

What a faff - on a pitch black country road in the middle of the night he went rifling through all the junk in my car, rummaged through my pockets and wallet and so on. Then came back and asked me, off the record so to speak, to be honest about whether I ever used cannabis. Well of course I do, but it's such a rare occurrence - basically maybe every couple of months when I go for dinner at a particular group of friends' houses, so I never have any of my own. He said "you have a habit, I notice, from the car, that suggests to me that you are a user". He wouldn't tell me what this habit was; he did say it wasn't the butts in the door pocket or the general mess, and that I'd have to work it out for myself.

Well, I haven't got the faintest idea. Unless perhaps he was referring to the fact that there was a Tesco back in the bag with half a dozen empty energy drink cans in - again the relics of several longer distance journeys over the past six months when I have stopped in service stations and I usually buy that sort of thing. So, is that it? I'd never really think of that as a trait of drug using, and I dare say that Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber wouldn't think so either!

I did notice that he didn't give me his name or number and whilst the female colleague did fill in a search form I was not given a copy - they said it was primarily for the supervisor at the station to record what they had been up to but that I could get a copy from their station (miles away in Bicester) if I wanted.

So much of a reward for going to do a friend a good turn. Do these people get off on stopping and harassing drivers for no observable reason? Jeez!


]]> Speaker ballot: Am I bovvered? http://jockcoats.me/speaker_ballot_am_i_bovvered 2009-06-22T15:09:53+01:00 2009-06-22T16:12:40+01:00 Jock Do I look bovvered? Well, do I?

Let's face it, the problems of the political class in this country will not be solved by one person in a funny get up however many reform committees they chair. Representative democracy is the problem. The state itself. The sooner they go home for their long vacations, and we get to put padlocks on the doors so they can't get back in to continue screwing up our country and our lives the better we will all be for it.

Anyone who thinks the system can be fixed, even with major surgery, is missing the point. The political system is a competition to see who is most persuasive in getting to a position that gives them power over an unthinkable proportion of our national wealth and production, the ability to tinker with markets with the now seen disastrous results and to force us all into slavery to their ideas for generations to come.

We don't need a new Speaker, we need a new constitution, rebuilt from the people upwards and relieving us of the burden of the state and its political masters.


]]> "M" is for "Max" http://jockcoats.me/m_max 2009-06-21T17:17:52+01:00 2009-06-21T18:26:39+01:00 Jock There's been a lot of knocking Max Mosley over the past couple of years, and it seems to be coming to a head in the current argument between the Formula One Teams Association and the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile of which he is, it should be noted, the elected president. As a motor car driver, this body represents, at an international level, the interests of all the national drivers' associations, and so, ultimately represents me.

But in all the criticism of Mosley, little has been said about his own history and interests in motoring and in motorsport. And this history is quite telling in the current dispute. This is a man who, seeking to get away from his family name, became interested in the sport quite by chance when he was invited by his girlfriend at university to a Silverstone race half a century ago. In contrast to the political scene in which he had dabbled with his father he was an unknown and nobody cared what his surname was.

This is a man who was driving in the race that killed Jim Clarke who decided to turn to building, racing and selling cars because both of his team mates had been killed in one season and he knew something had to be done about car safety. I had no idea until yesterday that the "M" in "March Engineering" is in fact "Mosley" - and I probably ought to have known that as my firm in the eighties acted as its broker on its rather ill-fated floatation on the stock exchange!

It's interesting that Williams are one of the two teams to have committed to next year so far - Frank Williams and Max Mosley go back a long way - it was Frank who built the cars in which Max raced all those years ago. Mosley knows what it means to be a small team fighting the giant car manufacturers, finding ways of making it easier for people to get started in racing at the top levels (he pioneered teams renting cars for a season for example). He has been ostracized by the big manufacturers before when he stood up for the little constructers and customer teams.

The FIA is of course about more than motorsport: Mosely says his greatest achievement as head of the FIA has been beefing up new car safety rules for all of us - the Euro-NCAP testing, and for racing drivers - the HANS neck brace for example, and whose avowed intention for the past few years has been to try to make F1 more relevant to us ordinary motorists by trying to get them to focus a bit more or development of technologies that can be of use in our cars to save fuel, increase safety or drivability and yes, performance in a lower energy future.

Whilst I am a little uncomfortable about the dominance particularly of Bernie Ecclestone and the various deals that have been done and threats that have been made over the years to get his and Mosley's way - usually it has to be said in defense of the sport in the face of political interference such as rulings by the EU and so on, I am on balance even more uncomfortable about a scenario in which the competitors control the lot, from the rules, to the intellectual property rights, right down to who may compete. Especially one dominated by the big motor manufacturers with their almost bottomless pits of money in good years.

It would be a little like putting Dwaine Chambers in charge of the athletics doping board! No, Max and Bernie's overall argument is correct - that the different aspects of the competition ought to be handled by specialist bodies. There may be quibbles about the immediate issue of how to reduce expenditure and so on, but I do hope FOTA see sense and find a way to reconcile their position with the FIA.

I never really thought I would find myself defending Max Mosley or Bernie Ecclestone to be honest. I had fallen for much of the popular image of them as autocratic oligarchs running a private empire. But let's face it, Mosley has been repeatedly elected by the drivers' representative bodies from around the world, even when it looked like he was becoming a public embarrassment for them over his private life last year. I guess it's a case of who you believe has the best interests of the most number of people involved in motorsport at heart - and on reflection I think that has to be the FIA rather than the cartel of global car manufacturers.


]]> On the AVes and AV-nots http://jockcoats.me/aves_and_av_nots 2009-06-09T23:48:23+01:00 2009-06-10T07:40:31+01:00 Jock Just a quickie really. There is a lot of confusion in the non-wonk world about "PR". Of course there are two meanings for the "P" in "PR": "Preferential", in which candidates can be ranked and which tend to ensure that the one least out of favour with the most electors actually gets elected, which in itself has some good points - very few UK MPs and English & Welsh Councillors can claim to have the confidence of at least half their electors and this would give them that; and "Proportional", in which the aggregate votes across a number of candidates tend to result in a number of people being elected fairly closely related to the overall share of the vote a party gets - they have such a system in Northwrn Ireland and in Scotland for local government and, even on relatively small constituencies of three or four members seems to have produced a fairly proportional result in council chambers.

The apparent proposal due from Gordon Brown is to use "Alternative Vote" which is one of the purely Preferential types of PR, with no pretense to Proportionality at all. It has the advantage mentioned above of ensuring that in single member constituencies someone has to get 50% support and so, I suppose, is slightly better that being fed to alligators in a Florida swamp, but not by much.

However, given that a general election is less than a year away, assuming no attempt is made to invoke some of the Civil Contingency powers to grant Gordon permanent rule without parliament (which cannot be ruled out of course!), it would be impossible to rearrange constituencies in my opinion to accommodation my preferred method of multi-member "Single Transferrable Vote" which is the Scottish local government system and certainly not, God help us, any list based system, or even "AV+" in which the constituency is decided by Alternative Vote then some top up regional members are allocated according to the overall share of the vote for each party in all the constituencies in that region.

So, I would support the Alternative Vote suggestion for ONE ELECTION ONLY and with an automatic clause that after that the relevant body (is it the Boundary Commission any more or has it been subsumed into the Electoral Commission?) immediately begins to reform constituencies in preparation for STV the next time round. The primary legislation preparing for this should be included in any imminent Bill proposing Alternative Vote so there can be no doubt that it will happen.

If that cannot be achieved, then I agree with those who say that AV is too small a step which, once taken, may set back the cause of true reform for another decade, and we should not in such a case support it at all. We must secure a firm commitment to proper reform. It is the proportionality of the UK parliament that is all wrong. AV can make a small difference in that, but it can also have the opposite effect.


]]> Common Sense - in memoriam Thomas Paine http://jockcoats.me/common_sense_memoriam_thomas_paine 2009-06-09T22:55:48+01:00 2009-06-09T23:58:02+01:00 Jock Yesterday, 8th June 2009, was the two hundredth anniversary of the death of Thomas Paine, corset-maker, pamphleteer, father of the American Revolution and member of the revolutionary National Convention of France. Despite all his achievements, six mourners attended his funeral, and his final resting place is unknown, having been disinterred by William Cobbett with the intention of giving him tomb in Britain, but the bones were lost when Cobbett died.

But as so often, Paine speaks across those two centuries as clear as the day he wrote. Of particular interest today, at a time when our government, parliament and constitution are showing such strain comes this gem:

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.

[From Thomas Paine, "Common Sense", February 1776]

We all know what happened three and a half months later. And what a success that has been for two centuries. Time to listen to his words again in Britain today and do the right thing!


]]> The Big Questions - Lib Dem on education http://jockcoats.me/big_questions_lib_dem_education 2009-06-07T10:00:32+01:00 2009-06-07T11:02:37+01:00 Jock Who is this marxist Lib Dem woman on the BBC's "Big Questions" promoting a ban on independent schools? Sheesh - she's less Liberal than I am Democrat (unfortunately my digital "switchover" is not playing this morning and I can only get audio at the moment - whichbloodybetter change before the Grand Prix starts!)


]]> OffRAMP - The watcher of the watchmen? http://jockcoats.me/offramp_watcher_watchmen 2009-06-05T16:48:26+01:00 2009-06-05T17:50:35+01:00 Jock So, we're to get an Independent Regulator for MPs? Might I suggest the acronym "OffRAMP" - the Office of the Regulator of All Members of Parliament.

Does nobody else think this is a really bad idea. I'm sorry, we "elect" these people to run the country, to represent us in the High Court of Parliament. I realize they're looking a pretty untrustworthy bunch right now, but who, philosophically speaking, has the right to regulate or oversee those we theoretically put right there, at the top of the tree of government?

That they cannot, it seems, be trusted to regulate themselves says more about the political system than can be fixed by some kind of external regulator. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe puts it:

"Free entry and competition is not always good. Competition in the production of goods is good, but competition in the production of bads is not. Free competition in killing, stealing, counterfeiting, or swindling, for instance, is not good; it is worse than bad. Yet this is precisely what is instituted by open political competition, i.e., democracy."


]]> Parliament (Dissolute) Bill 2009 [HC] (Amendment) http://jockcoats.me/parliament_dissolute_bill_2009_hc_amendment 2009-06-02T22:07:15+01:00 2009-06-02T23:16:18+01:00 Jock Basically our system of government is so undermined and the problems facing the country so great that I do not any longer believe that parliament can fix this on its own. As regular readers will know I'd personally prefer to do without them entirely. Their infantilizing tendency is a drain on the country and their propensity to claim to be able to act on almost any issue in all our names is repugnant to me. Putting this right cannot be the work of a general election process, as parliamentary reform will be subsumed within a mish-mash of policies covering every area pressing the country and there is a grave danger that any parliament so elected will feel itself cleansed and only needing minor tweaks to rebuild confidence.

This must not be allowed to happen. The combination of the contempt in which parliament is now widely held by the people of Britain and the economic situation is, to me, an unprecedented and unmissable opportunity for the widest reforms since 1649. I believe that a centralized parliament at Westminster and a government accruing more and more powers is no longer required in the 21st century, having evolved throughout eras where even travel within Britain was difficult and when the monarchial system required ministers to be physically at court in order to advise and have laws approved.

Central government is no longer even a "necessary evil" to me but an unmitigated disaster that does more harm than good to this country and the freedom, prosperity and happiness of its people. And this is an opportunity to begin to wield the grim reapers' scythe on its powers and constitution. But if members are going to vote themselves an opportunity for repentance and expiation by accepting the SNP/Plaid call for immediate dissolution and an imminent general election it must not be allowed to believe that any parliament elected is thereby cured of these ills. The new parliament must have only one effective function - to be a temporary body in which to agree the ground rules for the new Britain that will take us into the twenty first century as a modern nation of sovereign individuals requiring as little government as possible, and so I put forward the following amendment to next week's debate:

1. Lest any parliament elected as a result of this Act consider itself to have been cleansed of miscreants and absolved of blame, it is hereby enacted that this parliament shall sit for no more than one year, and shall be dissolved on a date to be decided by said parliament but in any event not after 9th July 2010.

2. That the sole purposes and business of this parliament shall be to:

  • a) oversee and co-ordinate the process of research, consultation and formulation of new constitutional arrangements to apply to future legislative and government institutions;
  • b) agree by a two thirds majority a definitive declaration of the economic and fiscal problems facing the country in order that in any future election the electorate will be able to know that proposals for economic and fiscal policy to deal with these issues are based on a common understanding of what the problems actually are.

3. In respect of 2.a) consideration of constitutional reforms to include, inter alia:

  • i) reformation of the methods of election of members of all parliaments, assemblies and local government bodies throughout the United Kingdom;
  • ii) reform of the methods of selection or election of individuals carrying executive responsibility in any part of the governance of the United Kingdom;
  • iii) the introduction of fixed term parliaments;
  • iv) the introduction of an English Parliament;
  • v) the abolition of parliament;
  • vi) reform of the second chamber;
  • vii) abolition of the second chamber;
  • viii) devolution of any or all powers and competencies of parliament and ministers to government structures closer to the electorate, including structures not heretofore in existence that may be recommended by these reforms;
  • ix) widespread reformation of those local levels of government to enable them to take on new roles devolved from Westminster;

and

  • x) any other matter referred to the parliamentary commission on petition of more than one hundred thousand (100,000) ordinary electors of the United Kingdom.

4. In respect of 3.

  • a) that members of all political parties who have contested national level election in the past two parliaments be invited to participate in these reviews on an equal footing with members elected at the forthcoming election;
  • b) that professional experts in constitutional arrangements in other countries and in political science more generally be invited to participate;
  • c) that leaders of each existing local authority and their opposition lead members be convened to a parallel reform body co-ordinated by the Local Government Association to be consulted by and to propose initiatives to the parliamentary commission on reform;
  • d) That local groups of interested citizens be formed to scrutinize the work at all stages and to be consulted on all proposals
  • e) If the new consitutional arrangement call for a parliament to be elected at Westminster, elections to said parliament under the new arrangements will take place not earlier than 10th October 2010 and not later than 31st October 2010.

5. That on or before the last day of the incoming parliament as in 1) above a series of options numbering no fewer than two and no more than three presented by the parliament and, with the consent of both houses, up to a further two options presented by petition of half a million (500,000) electors or more shall be put to the electors of the United Kingdom in a referendum conducted under a preferential voting system in which the option achieving 50% or more of the votes cast in the referendum, or, if none, the first to achieve 50% after elimination of the least favoured options and transfer of their votes to remaining options shall become the initial constitutional arrangements with effect from 10th July 2010.

6. In respect of 2.b)

  • a) agreement of a majority of two thirds of the interim parliament shall be required to confirm the list of economic and fiscal problems;
  • b) if, by a date no later than 28 days before the end of this parliament, 10th June 2010, no agreement has been reached by a two thirds majority of the parliament, the session on that day shall not rise until it is able to reach a two thirds majority, with no adjournment for refreshment or rest after midnight on 10th June 2010.


]]> Changing Chancellors...a question http://jockcoats.me/changing_chancellorsa_question 2009-06-02T12:22:37+01:00 2009-06-02T13:26:01+01:00 Jock Does anyone know whether there is precedent for changing Chancellor of the Exchequer between the budget and the Finance Bill passing all its parliamentary stages? This year's hasn't made it through the legislature yet has it?


]]> Blog's back... http://jockcoats.me/blogs_back 2009-05-29T13:51:50+01:00 2009-05-29T15:12:14+01:00 Jock ...and I hope it will be running more quickly and reliably.

For a few weeks now I've had this problem where my server has been going down periodally - sometimes not for days and then sometimes several times in the same day, and also it seemed interminably slow to load a page. When I bought by New Big Server I decided I would try and use virtual machines on it to distribute various functions like file storage, databases and web-servers.

So I've just in the past couple of days completely rebuilt the host machine and the virtual mail server and the virtual LAMP server, which means the web server is no longer trying to talk to three different virtual machines to produce a page and we'll see how it goes.

I hope it fixes it, though there are a number of updates I still need to do on the web-server software itself which I will get to over the weekend I hope.

Anyway - I hope it stays up and is faster at loading pages.


]]> Whensoever therefore the legislative (or the House of Common Thieves and Accomplices) shall transgress... http://jockcoats.me/whensoever_therefore_legislative_or_house_common_thieves_and_accomplices_shall_transgress 2009-05-27T09:11:22+01:00 2009-05-27T09:11:41+01:00 Jock The time has come to pass as it was written in the year of our lord Sixteen hundred and ninety, and in the second year of the reign of our glorious sovereign majesty William, Stadtholder of Holland, Prince of Orange and Count of Nassau-Dillenburg and his Queen, Mary; King and Queen of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, etc. by Mr John Locke:

222. The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society. What I have said here, concerning the legislative in general, holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative, and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. He acts also contrary to his trust, when he either employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society, to corrupt the representatives, and gain them to his purposes; or openly preengages the electors, and prescribes to their choice, such, whom he has, by sollicitations, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his designs; and employs them to bring in such, who have promised before-hand what to vote, and what to enact. Thus to regulate candidates and electors, and new-model the ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security? for the people having reserved to themselves the choice of their representatives, as the fence to their properties, could do it for no other end, but that they might always be freely chosen, and so chosen, freely act, and advise, as the necessity of the common-wealth, and the public good should, upon examination, and mature debate, be judged to require. This, those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing. To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of his own will, for the true representatives of the people, and the law-makers of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust, and as perfect a declaration of a design to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with. To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of perverted law made use of, to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a design, and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be past doubt what is doing. What power they ought to have in the society, who thus employ it contrary to the trust went along with it in its first institution, is easy to determine; and one cannot but see, that he, who has once attempted any such thing as this, cannot any longer be trusted.

[from John Locke, "The Second Treatise of Civil Government", Ch XIX "Of the Dissolution of Government", Para 222 (1690)"]

At the present government's behest we have:

  • over a decade seen ordinary people robbed of their earnings through massively rising house prices and the debt money inflation created on to finance these;
  • in the past year seen the result of this: further destruction of capital on a scale almost unprecedented, affecting those impoverished by the first as well as those made more wealthy;  
  • seen that our own and future generations will be paying for the bitter pill with which they have tried to clean this ordure of their own making through the further attachment of our earnings, property and wealth;
  • overt examples of politicians taking our money for their own frivolities under the eyes of all the others;
  • a parliament reduced to a leisure club by the business management of a government desperate to get their authoritarian legislative program through further to curtail our liberties;
  • and a government that has used all the patronage at its disposal to buy the votes of those elected to represent us, not them;
  • had a government that has taken us into military adventures of the most unwise kind, based on lies and exaggerations and at the behest of a foreign power and which have killed many of our bravest fellow citizens.

I do not believe the good and wise Mr Locke was suggesting that it was up to the various people inside that suppurating House of Common Thieves and Accomplices to invoke the right to dissolve and choose the form and method of replacing it, perhaps especially those whose main interest is in securing power in the next parliament. He said it was up to us, the "other half" of the social contract: We The People.

To stitch up a new set of regulations to permit lesser troughings amongst themselves would be a complete travesty. We need a comprehensive and popular settlement that will not become a part of a package of hundreds of other policies in a party manifesto whose importance may vary from voter to voter and eclipse the program of change in the orders of the House.

I suggest that we have a National Government beginning as soon as possible, with, effectively, only one task: to consult as widely as possible with the people of Britain on a new constitution, new forms of government and representation, to include the powers and competencies of national, local and community level governance, and to produce a short list of different constitutional options to be voted on by the people in a referendum.

If we can be trusted to choose from thousands of hopefuls to dance or sing or otherwise perform before our monarch in a variety show, we can surely manage to sift through the various options and priorities and put together a constitution worthy of Her Majesty's signature.

A Zero Based State! By the people and from the people. Vive la Revolution!


]]> Democracy itself, rather than the BNP, is the problem http://jockcoats.me/democracy_itself_rather_bnp_problem 2009-05-27T09:11:00+01:00 2009-05-27T09:13:02+01:00 Jock Let me make no bones about this before I start - I loathe the British National Party. They are the wolves of Nazism in the pseudo-respectable clothing of all the other political psychopaths; trying to be honey tongued while hiding an agenda dripping with hate. I don't believe most of the people who may vote for them in just over a week appreciate their background or would want to see most of their policies even remotely implemented. And they should remember when they stand in the polling booth that it took just four years for the BNP's historical inspiration, the NSDAP, to go from 2% of the vote in general elections to 37% of the vote and catapult Hitler into effective absolute power. The BNP is not the vehicle with which your vote can give the government or the boondoggling and exploiting MPs at Westmonster a wake-up kick in the pants.

But the BNP are merely a symptom of a problem, just as the rise of the NSDAP in Germany was; the problem of a decadent and failing democracy. Both the state of the economy and the expenses issue are other symptoms. Democracy creates the situation in which different groups of people vie with each other to persuade as many as possible of us that they will be able to perform miracles by taking others' property or curtailing their freedoms. And the more that proves not to work the more inured we become to their promises and tribal in our votes.

And yet we hear nonsense such as from Alan Johnson recently about their leaders being the sole messiahs who can run Britain and get her out of her problems, cynically ignoring the part their beloved system has played in causing those problems. As if we are a nation of numbskulls who would collapse without Our Dear Leader. And if we lose patience with their failed promises we drift around looking for some other silver tongued hero, and latch on one we either think is telling it how it is about the others, or baffling us with the science of how they can do better with our money and security.

There has been much talk recently about how the fall from grace of parliament over the expenses issue and so on ought to lead to big constitutional change. That at last there must be an appetite for proportional representation, or of independent scrutiny of this, that or the other. I'm sorry - we elect these people as our representatives. If we trusted them that much with the best part of half our production and property why on earth do they need some higher watchmen to watch over them? The system is clearly broken, and is making the country broken, leading some to make rash decisions that someone new, almost anyone, no matter he be a extremist at heart, could do better than this lot.

PR is no longer enough for me. We are, I believe, at that moment of which David Hume wrote in 1745, where we need discover the system is irretrievably broken and need to decide to do things differently. That democracy itself, at least this electoral democracy of state government, is the thing that has failed. That it gives to much power to too few over too many with too little of a mandate. It is fertile ground for all sorts of corruption and psychopathic nastiness, but only because we grant them this power over us as if we concede we need it. We do not.

I don't think I can be both a Liberal and a Democrat. They are irreconcilable ideas. It is time to abandon the quest to reconcile them.


]]> Troughing - it's what we voted for! http://jockcoats.me/troughing_its_what_we_voted 2009-05-21T06:37:42+01:00 2009-05-21T07:39:59+01:00 Jock You know, I don't understand why everyone is getting so upset about troughing MPs. Is it that we are appalled that people could be so blatant in taking our money for their own use? Or is it that we are disappointed that the real purpose of democratic politics has been revealed to us and having naively put our trust in it all our illusions are now shattered?

After all what else is multi-party democracy other than an open competition amongst different groups of people who want to command for themselves the vast resources government takes from us. That the extent of this has now been shown to reach such personal use of those resources should hardly surprise us.

Last night I was listening, via the magic of my new pride and joy, my iPhone, to a lecture by the market anarchist Austrian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, most of the substance of which he had covered in his speech last year at the Libertarian Alliance conference in London. My iPhone entertainment was a lecture entitled "The Impossibility of Limited Government" and you can read it at the Mises Institute's website or download the podcast (which I recommend because in places it's actually quite sardonically funny).

It seems even market fundamentalists believe that there are limits to the benefits of competition. Here's the most salient passage applicable to our troughing MPs:

Moreover, because the Constitution provided explicitly for "open entry" into state government — anyone could become a member of Congress, president, or a Supreme Court judge — resistance against state property invasions declined; and as the result of "open political competition" the entire character structure of society became distorted, and more and more bad characters rose to the top.[12]

Free entry and competition is not always good. Competition in the production of goods is good, but competition in the production of bads is not. Free competition in killing, stealing, counterfeiting, or swindling, for instance, is not good; it is worse than bad. Yet this is precisely what is instituted by open political competition, i.e., democracy.

In every society, people who covet another man's property exist, but in most cases people learn not to act on this desire or even feel ashamed for entertaining it.[13] In an anarchocapitalist society in particular, anyone acting on such a desire is considered a criminal and is suppressed by physical violence. Under monarchical rule, by contrast, only one person — the king — can act on his desire for another man's property, and it is this that makes him a potential threat. However, because only he can expropriate while everyone else is forbidden to do likewise, a king's every action will be regarded with utmost suspicion.[14] Moreover, the selection of a king is by accident of his noble birth. His only characteristic qualification is his upbringing as a future king and preserver of the dynasty and its possessions. This does not assure that he will not be evil, of course; at the same time, however, it does not preclude that a king might actually be a harmless dilettante or even a decent person.

In distinct contrast, by freeing up entry into government, the Constitution permitted anyone to openly express his desire for other men's property; indeed, owing to the constitutional guarantee of "freedom of speech," everyone is protected in so doing. Moreover, everyone is permitted to act on this desire, provided that he gains entry into government; hence, under the Constitution, everyone becomes a potential threat.

To be sure, there are people who are unafflicted by the desire to enrich themselves at the expense of others and to lord it over them; that is, there are people who wish only to work, produce, and enjoy the fruits of their labor. However, if politics — the acquisition of goods by political means (taxation and legislation) — is permitted, even these harmless people will be profoundly affected.

In order to defend themselves against attacks on their liberty and property by those who have fewer moral scruples, even these honest, hardworking people must become "political animals" and spend more and more time and energy developing their political skills. Given that the characteristics and talents required for political success — good looks, sociability, oratorical power, charisma, etc. — are distributed unequally among men, then those with these particular characteristics and skills will have a sound advantage in the competition for scarce resources (economic success) as compared with those without them.

Worse still, given that, in every society, more "have-nots" of everything worth having exist than "haves," the politically talented who have little or no inhibition against taking property and lording it over others will have a clear advantage over those with such scruples. That is, open political competition favors aggressive, hence dangerous, rather than defensive, hence harmless, political talents and will thus lead to the cultivation and perfection of the peculiar skills of demagoguery, deception, lying, opportunism, corruption, and bribery. Therefore, entrance into and success within government will become increasingly impossible for anyone hampered by moral scruples against lying and stealing.

Unlike kings then, congressmen, presidents, and Supreme Court judges do not and cannot acquire their positions accidentally. Rather, they reach their position because of their proficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Moreover, even outside the orbit of government, within civil society, individuals will increasingly rise to the top of economic and financial success, not on account of their productive or entrepreneurial talents or even their superior defensive political talents, but rather because of their superior skills as unscrupulous political entrepreneurs and lobbyists. Thus, the Constitution virtually assures that exclusively dangerous men will rise to the pinnacle of government power and that moral behavior and ethical standards will tend to decline and deteriorate over all.

[from Hans-Hermann Hoppe; "On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution"]

So, let us not be angry at our conspicuously greedy MPs; let's instead be grateful that they have exposed at last the true motivation behind democracy and its participants and hangers on. Also I suspect we should not be surprised that it has taken Labour's excesses to expose much of this. After all, Tories, and Whigs, and Liberals, have had many centuries developing their pick-pocketing style, it had to be these brash, clumsy, nouveuax elites who would get carried away, as if they thought they had to catch up with these others' centuries of pilfering in one term in case they never got the chance again (which may now very well be true of course).

Just last week I saw a piece by Stuart White at the Next Left blog saying that

...one claim made by some on the right (not all) [Jock: I'd argue not "right" but "libertarian" and therefore the true "left"] is this: at base, all people are really just selfish bastards who never miss an opportunity to maximize their own income and wealth. Even very moderate social democrats, who hold to a less radical egalitarianism than, say, Jerry Cohen (or John Stuart Mill), must, in all consistency, hold that it is both possible and desirable for people to run their lives on the basis of a higher principle than this.

and goes on to say that

If a Labour MP uses the expenses system in a way that deliberately maxes out what they get then, I suggest, they are acting in a way that conforms to the right-wing claim. They are not acting in their own lives on the basis of the principle which they must, in all consistency, think society as a whole both can and should live up to.

[from Stuart White; "If you're an egalitarian, how come you claimed so much in expenses?" on the Fabian Society "Next Left" blog]

Needless to say, I disagree. If a Labour MP, despite their apparent claim to the "higher principle" Stuart conjures up, can be getting up to this, does it not actually confirm the truth of the analysis of the likes of Hoppe and libertarians and anarchists past and present that we make it easier for bad men to come to rule over us, and this applies both in the political sphere and the commercial sphere by creating these power structures that maximize their opportunity to do so. Do away with the state and they'd not have this opportunity.

Let us not let the grubby system sweep this under the carpet and claim it is an aberration of otherwise good men trying to to good things. In is endemic in the system that puts a few people in charge of the vast resources they are able to steal from the rest of us. The system does not need reform. This episode has shown it for what it is, and it needs to go.

For further reading, I suggest:

"Democracy: The God That Failed - The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order" (Hans-Hermann Hoppe)


]]> One is not enough http://jockcoats.me/one_not_enough 2009-05-19T15:22:42+01:00 2009-05-19T17:28:44+01:00 Jock Perhaps now that the scandal of troughing MPs has claimed what other than the government itself must be it's biggest possible scalp in the form of forcing Michael Martin from the Speakership, this can be seen as a moment of catharsis that will precipetate the rapid resignation of many other Dishonourable Members who have been involved.

Those less dishonourable who, whilst not having had their fingers in the till themselves may have been aware of the culture of maximizing expenses amongst colleagues can really only rebuild their honour by persuading those colleagues to go.  Perhaps they could refuse to sit in the House or Committees with those tainted with scandal.  If it ends in a new "Rump Parliament" so be it.  It will soon lose all credibility, if it has any left at present and if the Palace won't dissolve it now as it should, it will have to act in such a situation.

If Gordon is not going to give us a General Election, then the immediate purging of these other suspects, whatever their rank or status in government or party is now necessary if Martin's sacrifice is not to be in vain. If they feel they can justify their behaviour they must be pressured to do so to their constituents not merely some committee in parliament.

If those honest colleagues cannot persuade them then there is no choice bit a dissolution and General Election. It's the very least that would satisfy me at least.

In the interim the Finance Bill must be put on hold or voted down. This particular Parliament no longer has amy moral right to determine how much of our money it wants to take for other activities of government now that it has shown so spectacularly how it has failed in spending even the bit they are personally accountable for.

A pox on them all! Vive la revoltion!

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

 

 


]]> Reformation Britain: The Sovereignty of All Citizens http://jockcoats.me/reformation_britain_sovereignty_all_citizens 2009-05-19T06:51:08+01:00 2009-05-19T08:09:05+01:00 Jock Several centuries ago, momentous change swept Europe. Whether you date it from as far back as 1439 and Gutenberg's printing press, Luther's 95 Theses in 1517 or perhaps Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy in 1534 or Elizabeth I's in 1559, the Reformation changed the world forever. A central theological theme of protestant reformers was that we did not need corrupt, money grabbing, clerics who made up their own hocus pocus rules to control the minds and actions of the rest of the people and to intercede for us with God; that we could all be masters of our own spiritual destiny through our personal relationship with God.

It was called the "Priesthood of all Believers". It was largely made possible by the rising availability of printed books, rather than publishing controlled by those corrupt clerics and their hangers on, and in particular, by the availability of the main faith texts in the local languages everyone could understand instead of the deliberately obfuscating Latin used by the clerics.

Fast forward to the turn of the twenty-first century. Another clever man had invented a new means of personal communication that would reach billions in a few years, enabling more than ever previously people from all corners of the world and all shades of opinion to communicate, collaborate and co-operate on all sorts of projects previously imagined to be bigger than could be managed by individuals and small groups of locally connected people.

A few years later we have been given an insight into the corruption and money grabbing antics of the people who have persuaded us that they are capable of ruling us, making decisions for us, relieving us of so much of our property for the "common(s) good".

It is time for a new Reformation. A secular Reformation. A civil Reformation. Founded on the core principle of the "Sovereignty of all Citizens". Who will be brave enough to cast out the modern day clerics, to instigate the Dissolution of the Bureaucracy?


]]> MPs' Expenses while councillors fiddle http://jockcoats.me/mps_expenses_while_councillors_fiddle 2009-05-14T16:56:52+01:00 2009-05-14T17:37:58+01:00 Jock While we're all having fun over MPs' expenses (by the way, sack the lot I say, and don't replace them - turn the building into a nice hotel and destroy the state apparatus as much as possible) space a thought for poor old Oxfordshire County Councillor Olive Steadman.

While these MPs get away with excuses like "it was a paperwok error" and so on, and whilst it's not that we actually believe them when they say it but there doesn't actually seem to be terribly much movement on taking criminal action, Ms Steadman, a truly batty seventy-something lady whom anyone in the world who knows her would believe that she makes regular paperwork errors, was immediately suspended from the Labour party, dragged through the courts, convicted and fined for having claimed some pension enhancement while she was receiving councillorrs' allowances.

Her excuse, too, was that she had not understood the entitlement and the forms (to be fair not a terribly rare ocurrance with the 347 page forms they make people fill in I imagine) and had since paid it all back or made arrangements to do so.

But no mercy was shown.  She had the whole book of forms thrown at her.  The same needs to be done where possible to the Westmonster troughers, every one of them!  We need them even less than the county councillors I suggest.  Less perhaps even than a hole in the head.


]]> Gurkha resettlement: only the tip of a very ugly mountain of discrimination http://jockcoats.me/gurkha_resettlement_only_tip_very_ugly_mountain_discrimination 2009-05-01T00:45:40+01:00 2009-05-01T01:45:43+01:00 Jock Let us move on a bit from the euphoria of what must have been the first Liberal party led parliamentary motion to have defeated the government since, oh, probably 1922 or something. Yes, it was a sweet moment, but I've been on duty in halls tonight and went, so I thought, to "celebrate" with my ex-Gurkha security guards. There really is very little to celebrate as it turns out. This resettlement stuff is the tip of a very large, a truly Sagarmathan sized, saga of discrimination and outright deception wielded against the Gurkhas for decades - generations indeed - which, now that they have the ear and following of the British "decent folk", needs to be pressed home - preferably before any banker or civil servant gets another penny of taxpayer money.

One of my guards tonight is at least third generation British Army Gurkha. He retired in 1994 as a WO2. His pension in 1994 from the British Army? Whether he lived here or back home...£22 per month. The same, in monetary terms, as his father got when he retired in the early seventies and when his grandfather retired in 1938.

I don't know if my readers will know all this - but for most of their time the Gurkha soldiers that have served Britain were not in the British Army, in the strictest sense. Until 1947 they were in the British Indian Army (or even, previously, in the British East India Company Army). At Indian independence, three (at least) separate streams were created - for those who wanted to serve in India, they continued in the newly independent Indian Army; for those who wanted to serve Britain, there was the brigade created in the British Army; and they also provide members for the police service in Singapore (and more recently to the Sultan of Brunei's independent force too - though most of these will have been in the British Army section previously).

So, when my guard from tonight retired from the British Army on £22 per month in 1994, which was 1000 Nepalese Rupee, his friends, family and so on who had at the same recruitment and selection events as him all those years previously decided they wanted to go to Singapore, were retiring on a pension of 22,000 Nepalese Rupee. They had all been led to believe when they joined up that there had been a binding tripartite agreement involving India, Britain and Singapore to keep all the Gurkha wages the same so that there would be no disadvantage for men choosing one or the other.

When my chap retired, a group of them took the Nepalese government to court to get them to show them this agreement and it appears it may never have existed. So whilst the British section were observing it, benefitting from what was little better than (albeit extremely good) cheap labour, the others were paying equivalent wages to their locally recruited colleagues. The British Army ones had few family rights either throughout their service. If they were based in Hong Kong as many were, or Brunei, they didn't get to take their families there; whilst in Singapore, a crowded wee place if ever there was, their Gurkhas' families got full rights as families of government employees - their kids could go to Singapore schools and so on - and have the right to remain when their fathers have retired and so on - even if their fathers decide to retire to Nepal.

Now you also know, no doubt, because we hear about it all the time in respect of British recruited armed forces, of this concept of "tours of duty" between which you come back home to your home garrison and have months or years with your family before being shipped off somewhere else. Of course those "Robson and Jerome" British soldiers in the garrison at Hong Kong also got this, as well as some rights to have their families in Hong Kong. The Gurkhas? Not a chance. The British Gurkhas in Hong Kong were there more or less permanently with just vacation type visits to family back in Nepal. My chap did thirteen years on one "tour" with nothing other than holidays home.

So, whatever the outcome of the resettlement rights campaign, this goes far deeper. By how much, and with what justification, have these guys been paid a fraction of not just the rest of the British Army but even their colleagues in Singapore, and for how long? What is their pension entitlement now, compared with someone of similar rank in a domestic British regiment of a similar age and why is it different if it is?

It's too depressing, it really is. Presumably someone has done the maths and worked out, instead of just batting away government claims that it would be "too expensive", precisely how much it would cost to treat these guys on something like a par with their ranking equivalents in other regiments, as, presumably, their British Gurkha officers are with their equivalents.

As I have said before, I personally don't much care for the very notion of a state military force, but if we are going to have them, and generally agree that we need them, we ought at least treat people, of whatever race and nationality and for whatever reason they opted to serve our country, decently - from the tales of British veterans being told they cannot have specially adapted housing on planning grounds or whatever, to the near slave labour that appears to have been the case with the Gurkhas. We have, or have had, what has often been described as the best military in the world, size for size. It is some wonder given how we treat them.


]]> 29.04.09: Budget Live-Blogging - Unemployment, Development, Agiculture and Roads http://jockcoats.me/290409_budget_live_blogging_social_expenditure 2009-04-29T18:00:31+01:00 2009-04-30T09:10:29+01:00 Jock 29th April, 1909. Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr David Lloyd-George today took the unprecedented step of publishing the calculations of the national accounts and the details of his proposals to be announced in the House of Commons later today to Honourable Members with the vote bundle first thing this morning.

Mr Lloyd-George hoped that it would "lighten my task in delivering my speech, and lighten the task of the House in having to listen to it, but also because I think it is fairer to Members".

Mr Austen Chamberlain, Shadow Chancellor, welcomed the move, saying that it "was congenial to the House".

15:06 Sitting of the whole house adjourned and Ways and Means Committee of the whole house is convened with Mr Alfred Emmott (Oldham, Deputy Speaker) in the Chair.  Mr Lloyd-George begins by noting that his Opposition Shadow, Austen Chamberlain (East Worcestershire) had ribbed him after Mr Asquith's budget speech last year that he pitied the man who had to follow that.  Well here we are and it feel even more daunting!  He notes the innovation of the "Red Book" and hopes MPs find it useful in following what will be a complicated budget statement.

Notes that the deficit out-turn for 1908-1909 will have been slightly higher than expected at just over £700,000 but that this will be taken from the Exchequer Balances which are exceptionally high at over £8m owing to the Sinking Fund surplus of 07-08.  More detail later.

Government income expectations: Customs and Excise income will be reduced in the current year, but mainly owing to people having brought forward taxable transactions to 08-09 anticipating increases in tax this time round, so most of the money is there, just accounted for in last year's figures.  Despite downturn in trade Income Tax receipts have held up well and promise to do so in the coming year proving what a sustainaable tax they are.

15:15 Big Deficit Predicted However new expenditure commitments mean that we can now expect current year deficit to be £15m - more than members will be expecting.  Were this down to temporary factors we could deal with them with once off remedies, but the new heavy expenditure is down to two main areas which the whole House has supported - Naval expenditure and Old Age Pensions.

Indeed in both cases, the deficit would be higher still had we accepted calls supported even by opposition leaders, for higher or broader pensions.  But the upshot is we now need to start budgeting for future years and not just the current year, just as companies who know they have committed to major expenditure changes have done for a long time. "Prudence" says so (her again!).

L-G hits back at criticism from both within the House and beyond that this is a "socialistic" escalation in expenditure by saying that it is over-due.  Governments of all parties have promised pensions for years and not delivered.  All parties agreed to the current measures and Conservatives would have spent even more.  This is simple honesty to the electorate.  Besides, the Dreadnaught crisis had not arisen when the Old Age Pension bill was passed so could not have been anticipated or used to block pensions.

15:20 Dreadnaught costs. Each Dreadnaught costs 1d on Income Tax.  So proposals to build eight will cost 8d on Income Tax if implemented.  Security of nation critical but cannot build a fleet to fight a non-existent enemy fleet.  Settled on four initially in 1909-10 and 10-11 with most costs falling in 10-11.  Even more reason to start budgeting for future years.  Our proposals will enable us to increase the program to eight ships in 1911 without additional taxation if the need arises.  If it is not spent, it will be added to social programs or used to reduce the rates.

15:30 Social expenditure.  All parties are agreed that a nation as wealthy as us should not tolerate the thousands of households who are destitute through worklessness not of their own making.  The extent of the problem is shown starkly by the take-up of the Old Age pension.  Urgent need for unemployment insurance and disability insurance for those out of work through no fault of their own.  Some suggest waiting till we have built Dreadnoughts.  But how can we in good conscience put ships before people in such a way.  We need to start extending insurance now.

15:35 Extending pensions.  "Paupers Pensions" (those who have not contributed during work years and are currently excluded from the 1908 Act and rely on Parish Pensions of half the 5s of the 1908 Act) will end and from 1st Jan 1911 will fall into the single Old Age Pension entitlement.  Negotiations are ongoing with Local AUthority Leaders for them to part finance this as it will reduce their Poor Law bills substantially.

No reduction in pension age to 65.  Such a move would cost £15m-20m per year.  And whilst we do not say we could not afford it, we have a choice - do we pay for perfectly healthy people to retire earlier when their labour would s till be the best way of supporting themselves, or do we now begin to look to other sources of poverty - ill-health through no fault of their own.

15:45 Social Insurance.  Much study of German contributory scheme for those unable to work through ill-health or other causes not of their own making.  Government will bring forward proposals shortly to introduce something similar here.  Friendly Societies have done a marvellous job but the worst off cannot afford the regular contributions that really make the schemes work.  We must create a scheme that - compels all to contribute something toward it; the state contributes for those who cannot so those who do are not disadvantaged; does not threaten the current good work of provident societies in proving more and better cover for those who want to contribute more by undermining them.  Including widows and orphans cover German system costs 53m for a government input expected to be around 5m.

16:00 Unemployment.  There is little a government can do about unemployment due to the normal cycles of trade.  But following Poor Law Commission reports we intend to work up a scheme of insurance for, in the first case, the most vulnerable trades least likely to be covered by union schemes.  Labour exchanges mentioned in this year's government program will establish the infrastructure and are a pre-requisite so we will bring forward proposals for the insurance scheme in the next session.

16:15 Development.  Unemployment insurance is one thing, but getting people into work is even better.  Government is not in the business of creating jobs, but there are plenty of areas in whichi the country has further to develop to fulfill its capacity and many jobs will be needed.  Government can help to see to it that people are "equipeed", "permitted" and if necessary "helped" to access such opportunities.  Government can invest in ways that do not necessarily produce the financial returns a company would require, but more social benefits.  And this we propose to do.

16:20 Various development schemes: Afforestation.  Following report of Royal Commission under Ivor Guest (MP for Cardiff) Government will investigate further the idea of promoting the reafforestation of waste land in Britain which is far behind that of other countries and in which it generations great income and supports many households.

Agricultural assistance grants: Britain does not spend as much as other countries on agriculture and the development of the nation's natural resources and as a result our land is less productive and our import needs greater.  Whole House agrees on problem but not solution.  Government proposes to establish a National Development Grant fund to help encourage the skills needed to better develop these resources and bring down the cost of items like food for the orindary household through better management of our resources.

16:30 Motor Traffic and Roads:  Britain leads way in ownership of motor vehicles - 3 times that of France and 4 times of Germany.  Infrastructure is apalling - some decades ago many thought roads were no longer needed as the railways grew, but the motor car changes all this.  Motorists want to contribute, if they only could be assured their contributions would be solely spent on roads.  Government proposes a road fund license hypothecated to a central highways agency who will distribute it to the local authorities responsible for roads on specific well designed schemes that will improve life for the motorist.  More on this fund later.

More to come...


]]> People's Budget Day http://jockcoats.me/peoples_budget_day 2009-04-29T07:37:24+01:00 2009-04-29T09:48:14+01:00 Jock Just a brief post to recall that today, 29th April, is the hundredth anniversary of David Lloyd-George's 1909 "People's Budget". Thanks to the wonders of the interwebs you can now read the whole budget online.

He ended (the main section - in the "Balance Sheet" section) with these words which have stood for a century accusing his successors of all parties for not having solved the problems he set out on the road to do:

"This, Mr. Emmott [in the chair of the Ways and Means Committee to which the budget was addressed], is a War Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness. I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time when poverty and wretchedness and human degradation which always follow in its camp will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests."

[from "Balance Sheet": Budget 1909

From the financing of the newly created Old Age Pension and Disability insurance to the funding of the preparations for real war in the form of spending on Dreadnought battleships there was much for Lloyd-George to find in his budget. He didn't miss a trick, and more or less anything that could conceivably be taxed was, in many cases for the first time, taxed.

But for many of us it is for what ended up not being taxed that this budget is most remembered. The debate surrounding this budget, with speeches up and down the country by Lloyd-George himself and more notably perhaps Winston Churchill, must be one of the best documented in history, for it was a first attempt to implement some permanent form of Land Value Taxation. A tax shift that Churchill described as:

"the new attitude of the State towards wealth. Formerly the only question of the tax-gatherer was, "How much have you got?" We ask that question still, and there is a general feeling, recognised as just by all parties, that the rate of taxation should be greater for large incomes than for small. As to how much greater, parties are no doubt in dispute. But now a new question has arisen. We do not only ask to-day, "How much have you got?" we also ask, "How did you get it? Did you earn it by yourself, or has it just been left you by others? Was it gained by processes which are in themselves beneficial to the community in general, or was it gained by processes which have done no good to any one, but only harm? Was it gained by the enterprise and capacity necessary to found a business, or merely by squeezing and bleeding the owner and founder of the business? Was it gained by supplying the capital which industry needs, or by denying, except at an extortionate price, the land which industry requires? Was it derived from active reproductive processes, or merely by squatting on some piece of necessary land till enterprise and labour, and national interests and municipal interests, had to buy you out at fifty times the agricultural value? Was it gained from opening new minerals to the service of man, or by drawing a mining royalty from the toil and adventure of others? Was it gained by the curious process of using political influence to convert an annual licence into a practical freehold and thereby pocketing a monopoly value which properly belongs to the State—how did you get it?" That is the new question which has been postulated and which is vibrating in penetrating repetition through the land."

[From "The Spirit of the Budget", a speech given in Leicester in Sept 1909, recorded in Churchill's own memoirs "Liberalism and the Social Problem" and put online by Project Guttenberg.

When at last the Finance Bill of 1909 was rejected by the House of Lords (an action that led directly to two General Elections and the eventual imposition of curbs on the Upper House's power in the form of the Parliament Act 1911) Richard Cobden's comments in the Corn Laws debates in 1845 had come to its most extreme conclusion:

"For a period of one hundred fifty years after the [Norman] Conquest, the whole of the revenue of the country was derived from the land. During the next one hundred and fifty years it yielded nineteen-twentieths of the revenue. For the next century down to the reign of Richard III it was nine-tenths. During the next seventy years to the time of Mary it fell to about three-fourths. From this time to the end of the Commonwealth, land appeared to have yielded one half of the revenue. Down to the reign of Anne it was one-fourth. In the reign of George III it was one-sixth. For the first thirty years of his reign the land yielded one-seventh of the revenue. From 1793 to 1816 (during the period of the land tax), land contributed one-ninth, from which time to the present [1845] one-twenty-fifth only has been derived from the land. ...Thus, the land which anciently paid the whole of taxation paid now only a fraction. ...The people had fared better under the despotic monarchs than when the power of the state had fallen into the hands of a landed oligarchy who had first exempted themselves from taxation, and next claimed compensation for themselves by a corn law for their heavy and peculiar burdens."

Source: School of Co-operative Indivdualism, Quoted authors on the land question

The course of that "implacable war against poverty and squalidness" was set and as we know today, continues now and will continue until we learn to stop taxing production and honestly gained incomes and start instead to undermine the fundamental inequities of the economic system that traps so many in inescapable poverty, as people like Lloyd-George, Churchill, J S Mill, Henry George, and many of the individualist anarchists of the nineteenth century, like Benjamin Tucker knew only too well.

A century is long enough - real poverty reduction will never be achieved by redistributing the power of real economic growth but in eradicating these fundamental inequities that prevent people from bettering themselves. Alistair Darling, you have no hope of matching Lloyd-George. Learn from them, or give it up!

I am reminded by Henry Law's blog also that this month sees the 350th anniversary of the take-over the Diggers under Gerard Winstanley of various bits of land across several counties of the south of England and south Midlands.  Later in summer sees the anniversary of their arrest and removal.

 


]]> Breaking radio silence... http://jockcoats.me/breaking_radio_silence 2009-04-25T23:24:08+01:00 2009-04-26T21:24:08+01:00 Jock ...in a good if probably unsuspected cause.

Most of you will probably realize that I regard the need for a military as one of the state's defining, and worst, features. States are made for war, and they have to have such bodies of their finest young men and women to do unquestioning their filthy work for them.*

I have had retired Gurkhas as security guards at my hall of residence for several years now. I am always both touched and embarrassed when I go down to take a walk around the site with them always to be addressed as "sir". I cannot imagine any of the other guards we have had doing so. They are the best guards we have had. They are reliably on time, and stay reliably till the end of the shift. I always know (for many years with other guards I didn't have such confidence) that if they come across an incident they will deal with it and that if they cannot, they will not just leave a student's concern or complaint unanswered and call us in if they need to.

Once upon a time these men I work with had fought it out, amongst their friends from their remote mountain villages, for the honour and privilege of being able to be sent away, cannon fodder for imperialist and post imperialist political egoists half a planet away. For two hundred years their villages have carried on what seems, to me, to be something of a mystifying tradition. They have fought, been feared as amongst the best, toughest soldiers in the world, for this jumped up belligerent little lump of rock of ours off the coast of north western Europe, and have died in their tens of thousands in our name.

In civilian life they are small only in stature. Their honesty, sense of respect, attention to duty, courtesy and loyalty are second to none. That is I am sure quite natural, but it is also, to them, the manifestation of what they consider to be "British". And boy do they do it a good deal better than many of the well-heeled native youth we come across wandering around off their heads, screaming and shouting and being abusive in the dead of the night who are to be, one presumes, our leaders of the future, once they graduate.

This weekend they are dumbfounded, to put it mildly, at the latest turn of events in the saga that has been the fight to allow some of their older comrades (mine all served post-97 I believe), the men whom they followed generation after generation from the top of the world to fight for this country, its people, its monarch and its self-serving politicians, to settle here.

Most of you will also know my outspoken views on immigration and border controls - that sharing the birthright of this planet we are all born onto, that freeing trade amongst all the nations of the world, means that people must be able to follow goods in freedom around the planet.

But for Fuck's Sake. If we do have to have borders. If we do have to try and stop people getting into this country, and I am prepared to be practical enough to realize that whilst open borders do not exist around the world and whilst many do not live in freedom and so are forced to try to escape their own tyrants we may well have to have some form of control, it should not be these people. These tough, loyal, courageous men who have done more for this country, with so little thanks, than so many even of our own have done or ever will do to deserve a living from our tax payments.

The Home Department, Secretary Jacqui Smith and Minister Phil Woolas should hang their heads in shame. For me, it would be fair justice if these men, inheritors of the heroes of the Western Front, of Sepoy, of Burma, of Borneo and Malaya, of Afghanistan and Iraq both now and ninety years ago and of many other battles in between, were to take matters into their own hands and turn their fighting talents to the walls and fences of Downing Street, and I'd hope that every last man and woman with a Queen's Commission or Shilling to their name would be right there behind them.

Our craven, cowardly, authoritarian, destructive, ungrateful, penny pinching, mealy mouthed, thieving, self-serving "representatives" would deserve everything they get.  Alas for us, these Gurkhas are too honourable to do our dirty work for us.  It is up to us to show this shitty spineless government the door, and preferably the inside of the cell beyond it.

*I am prepared to acknowledge that in this day and age much of what they do can be "humanitarian" in one form or another, but their need even in those situations would be lessened if it were not for other states at war.


]]> Herbert, Ludvig, Murray, Friedrich and Vince http://jockcoats.me/herbert_ludvig_murray_friedrich_and_vince 2009-04-13T11:18:00+01:00 2009-04-13T12:20:09+01:00 Jock In a quick diversion from my task of preparing a business plan to rescue Oxfordshire's distressed home-owners and businesses from the worst effects of the state-created credit crunch I noticed the other day, in a rare foray into blogging himself, a Lib Dem Federal Policy Committee member, Geoffrey Payne, has been reading Vince Cable's new book about the credit crisis, The Storm. Geoffrey is one of those Lib Dems with a visceral hatred of anything "economically liberal", which he will always equate to something akin to "what Maggie and Ronnie did".  He notes that Vince quotes Herbert Spencer, saying that it shows how little Vince thinks about "extreme libertarians":

I have read the book and would heartedly recommend it. I agree with most of it. Because it is short there are obvious gaps - the chapter on Malthus is rather short and inconclusive which is a shame as I for one think it ought to be the most important part.

However there is no doubt what he thinks about extreme Libertarians;

"(quote from Herbert Spencer) 'The ultimate result of shielding man from the efects of his folly is to people the world with fools' . This approach was influencial in the years of the Great Crash, and it helped inform the advice given to president Hoover by his treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon: to do nothing. '[Panic] will purge the rottenness out of the system ... People will work harder and live a more moral life ... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.' Since Hoover and Mellon emerged as the fools who precipitated the Great Depression, their abstemiousness become seriously unfashionable", page 46, The Storm. [From Left Liberal: Vince Cable lays into Libertarians]

Now, I don't suppose for one minute that Geoffrey has bothered to read the Spencer essay from which this quote comes. I hope Vince has. For in "State-tamperings with money and banks" which can be found in Vol 3 of his "Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative" available on the web courtesy of the Online Library of Liberty Spencer produces a fantastic critique of state controlled money systems and how they will inevitably exacerbate bubbles and crashes.

Allowing for the slightly convoluted Victorian English prose style, it is a fabulous analysis of why, as Hayek concluded a hundred and tenwty years later, or as both Mises and Rothbard have concluded in their ciriticism of the Federal Reserve system, the state is incompetent in the running of currency.

What the government is doing by quantitative easing is abolishing the rule of law and its part in enforcing contracts. What they are saying by creating additional money into the system is that you no longer need to pay all the debts on contracts you have issued, because here's some extra money-tokens to cover them. And that if banks were allowed to run under free banking these crises would never been as deep or as pervasive as they are through manipulation of the currency by the state and the banking system by regulation.

It is a brilliant exposition of the origins and effects of what we know of as "moral hazard". And that the effects of us being shielded from that moral hazard by state offered, ultimately worthless, guarantees, is to populate the banking system with the sort of fools we have witnessed, from Fred the Shred to Adam Applegarth.

I encourage you to read Spencer's essay (it runs to about 23 pages of one and a half lines width print on A4). If we are to avoid this sort of crisis again, we need to learn from the likes of him, and Hayek, and Mises and Rothbard, about how these crises come about through the state currency system. I am very proud that English liberals understood this a hundred and fifty years ago, and equally ashamed that politicians ever since have believed themselves immune to these facts of economic life.


]]> Laugh? I nearly died...BBC Correspondent Nick Robinson Missing http://jockcoats.me/laugh_i_nearly_diedbbc_correspondent_nick_robinson_missing 2009-04-03T13:10:28+01:00 2009-04-03T14:10:31+01:00 Jock And my whole office are staring at me trying to compose myself and work out what to tell them...(probably best not for work)
Police in London have launched a massive search for BBC Political Correspondent Nick Robinson, who has been missing since the end of the London G20 Summit.
Robinson, bald, was last seen submitting yet another sycophantic Blog post on the BBC website, in which he described Gordon Brown as 'The Chancellor of the World Exchequer'.[From BBC Correspondent Nick Robinson Missing]

]]> "Never have so few been attacked so much by so many" http://jockcoats.me/never_have_so_few_been_attacked_so_much_so_many 2009-03-22T09:34:28+00:00 2009-03-22T09:48:34+00:00 Jock What the Beeb could not do for Gaza, John Redwood does today as he boldly launches an appeal on behalf of struggling "public sector fat cats":

Today I would like you to spare a thought and a few billion for the public sector fat cats. They have been going through a miserable time lately.

Fred Goodwin has been pilloried for his noble action in creating the largest loss making bank in UK financial history and for delivering it safely into the public sector.

Chief Executives the length and breadth of local government and quango land have been subject to abusive intrusions in to the privacy of their rewards by the Taxpayers Alliance, the Redwood website and others.

They should be supported for increasing the costs of public services year after year, for keeping productivity down, and for tirelessly recruiting so many extra administrators, spin doctors, regulators and management consultants to help them. We need all the jobs we can get in a recession. One man’s productivity gain can be another man’s job loss.

Read the rest at The Sunday appeal. I thought it was quite funny anyway.


]]> Tax havens are such old hat... http://jockcoats.me/tax_havens_are_such_old_hat 2009-03-21T22:15:10+00:00 2009-03-21T22:19:31+00:00 Jock I've blogged about the future of money and the possibility of virtualizing most of your monetary transactions before. With the current campaign against tax havens it's perhaps worth pointing this one out:

Online game gets banking licence Entropia has regularly mixed real and virtual finances. Online game Entropia Universe has been granted a licence to be a bank. Issued by the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority, the licence means the game can be more closely tied to the real world finances of players. [From BBC NEWS | Technology | Online game gets banking licence]

Now the article goes on to say that the Swedish banking authorities will be regulating the system, able to inspect accounts to ensure it's not being used for money laundering and so on. And that accounts in the online system will be covered by the same depositors' insurance as "real world" banks. But with the technology now quite well established there seems no reason why such systems could not run as virtual financial centres without any regulation at all.

Indeed, in researching software for my own mutual partnership banking project I even discovered that there is an open source "central bank" management system out there. I believe these development are inevitable. Governments that seek to prevent them will have to become extremely intrusive into their citizens' affairs. They had better get used to the idea and find different things to tax (like land, that you can't very easily "disappear" into the ether) or risk becoming ever closer to totalitarian.


]]> Taxing the rich - Fraser's error http://jockcoats.me/taxing_rich_frasers_error 2009-03-21T20:41:31+00:00 2009-03-21T20:43:13+00:00 Jock Over at ConservativeHome there's a post about George Osborne's predicament over the Labour proposal for a 45% tax rate on incomes over £150,000 per year. Now, as we know when we did our work on the Lib Dem 50% tax rate it seems likely that such a move will collect very little and annoy many people whom the country needs for investment. And of course I don't like taxes at all and would abolish all but land rents in my empire, but this particular piece of criticism by Fraser Nelson due in tomorrow's News of the World attracted my attention:

> Fraser Nelson in the News of the World (not yet online) THE 45p TAX HIKE MAY RAISE "NOTHING" "Right now, the richest 1 per cent pay 23 per cent of all income tax collected. They pay their fair share – and the fair share of 22 other people. When the tax rate rises too much, the rich just bugger off. We saw this in the seventies. But as Tory peer told me: “Those too young to remember the seventies are destined to repeat its mistakes”. Yesterday George Osborne now said Brown’s proposed 45p tax on the rich is “difficult to avoid”. Difficult if you have no imagination. Experts say this proposed 45p tax will raise NOTHING. Because the super-rich will emigrate, or work less. Just like in the 70s." [From George Osborne hit by quadruple whammy]

It is frequently argued that the wealthy pay enough, and as in this piece that they pay the equivalent of many other people put together - more than their fair share. However, it is just plain wrong.

The top 1% by wealth in this country also own nearly 25% of the financial wealth in the country. While the very poorest tax payers (the bottom two fifths of the population that is) own no financial wealth at all yet still pay tax. So, whether we approve of taxation at any level at all, let's please once and for all get rid of this idea that the wealthy pay more than their fair share because of simplistic tax take ÷ number of taxpayers calculations.

Of course, as a Georgist, I would also say that of the financial wealth the richest do own, much of it directly takes money from the poorest, both in interest and rent, and should probably be more heavily taxed to drive them to invest in productive assets rather than zero-sum assets.


]]> Environmentalism - the new sky fairy? http://jockcoats.me/environmentalism_new_sky_fairy 2009-03-21T19:35:14+00:00 2009-03-21T20:48:29+00:00 Jock Spotted this is today's Oxford Mail. An environmentalist has been allowed by the courts to claim for unfair dismissal owing to his environmental beliefs:

An Oxford environmentalist, sacked from one of the country’s largest property companies, is to claim he was unfairly dismissed because of his views on climate change. Tim Nicholson, 41, told a pre-hearing review his views on the environment put him at odds with other senior employers at Grainger plc — and contributed towards his dismissal. Mr Nicholson was told he could make a claim under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. [From Environmentalist to fight sacking at tribunal (From Oxford Mail)]

So, is it greenery matter of faith? Or science?


]]> No - not the champion of civil liberties http://jockcoats.me/no_not_champion_civil_liberties 2009-03-14T13:36:43+00:00 2009-03-14T13:36:47+00:00 Jock It must sometimes be a bit annoying for David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary who stood down and fought a byelection over the 42 day detention issue and other civil liberties, to have such a common name. For his fellow conservative homonym David Davies is now calling for a further curtailment of civil liberties:

Call for ban on military protests Angry protests greeted returning soldiers in Luton Conservative MP David Davies has called on abusive protests against serving military personnel to be outlawed. The Monmouth MP has tabled an amendment to a bill governing religious hatred that would extend protection to the Armed Forces. It would make it an offence to incite hatred against serving soldiers. [From BBC NEWS | Politics | Call for ban on military protests]

The trouble is Davies is also wrong. These are big boys and girls. They have stared death in the eyes and faced him down. What they really need to know is not that there is some simmering resentment that goes unvoiced, prohibited, but that the vast majority of us, from the reaction to the Luton protestors this week amongst the good people of Britain, are prepared to stick up for them and heap opprobrium on such protestors.

We go down a dangerous route in banning protest. Far better to get angry and shout them down each and every time and make it clear as a bell that they are in the minority. Our men and women on the front lines, whatever we think of the reasons for them being there, are not there to create or enforce the kind of society that will not brook criticism, we should not shield them from it when they return, but make them proud that the majority of us stick up for them freely and genuinely.


]]> Monetary Reform and G20 http://jockcoats.me/monetary_reform_and_g20 2009-03-14T13:07:05+00:00 2009-03-14T13:09:18+00:00 Jock I have long argued that the current crisis will not be solved, nor a future similar one prevented, by doing "more of the same" - tinkering with regulation and so on is fiddling around the edges of a money system that is fundamentally corrupted. A few weeks ago I wrote that we had until 2nd April to persuade leaders to change the system rather than shore up the old one.

There is now one of those petitions at the Number 10 site which asks that monetary reform be included in the options for the G20 when they meet. Now, I don't agree with the nature of the reform the petition writers wish to see (although I used to). But I do agree that "something must be done" and all the petition actually asks for is greater reform to go on the agenda.

So if you agree that the G20 needs to take a more fundamental look at what money is and how it works, rather than just altering the regulatory regime of the current flawed system, maybe you'd like to sign the petition too.


]]>