The fundamental anti-democratic nature of socialism

Nottingham North MP Graham Allen (Labour) tells Laura Kuennsberg (of the BBC):

"It was a very good result under the rules, but the Labour government should have changed the rules so that we would never have been out of power, regardless of a General Election result."

(seen in a Guido Fawkes "Quote of the Day")

"The Tories open fire on Unite"

Excellent article in today's Coffee House from The Spectator, exposing the malign influence of Charlie Whelan's (*) Unite union on Labour and on national politics, indeed on the government of this country - hell-bent on wrecking havoc on BA - although it's just possible that 'ditherer Brown' has been panicked into begging his Unite-paymasters into some kind of climb-down, or at least a slightly more reasonable posture.

(*) As an aside for any Nairn readers, the editor of the Spectator, Fraser Nelson, is a worthy product of Nairn; Charlie Whelan apparently lives in the area, and was trumpeted recently by Nairn's bottom-feeding 'blogger-in-chief' for having walked on Nairn beach with his dog - big deal! Charlie Whelan walking on anyone's beach is not, in my humble opinion, anything to be proud of or to trumpet loudly. It's all a question of priorities and, dare I say it, judgement in what what one chooses to blog about; I've been discreet about my views on this matter (the lack of judgement of Nairn's 'blogger-in-chief') until now, and there are a number of documented examples that spring to mind, but I have grown tired of my reticence - that is now over!

Blair for EU Council President? Give us a break!

Look, no-one who has read much of my blog-musings can be in any doubt that my views on our former Prime Minister are overwhelmingly negative. So it will come as no surprise that my first reaction, when I first heard that Tony Blair might become the first President of the Council of the EU, was to check my calendar - could it really be the 1st of April already? Or as Victor Meldrew (amusingly, the decidedly 'socialist' Richard Wilson) might have said: "You cannot be serious?!".

So the heavy "State Propaganda" from the Labour government apparatus over the past week that it was almost 'inevitable' that Blair was a shoo-in for this job did make me wonder if I was dreaming (a bad dream, not a good one). Naturally the pretty crude propaganda from David Milliband and from Gordon Brown was supported by various of the leftish-dominated media, from the extensive air-time given this 'spin' by the BBC to various leftie-journalists writing about the idea favourably. They seemed to be nonplussed a couple of days ago when it became clear that neither Angela Merkel (German Chancellor) nor Nicolas Sarkozy (French President) seemed to be similarly in favour - not surprising really when you consider that neither has a 'socialist' bone in their bodies - thanks goodness!

The spectacle of Gordon Brown 'prostituting' himself for his old adversary at an EU-summmit yesterday was really weird. Just how out of touch is this man? His transparently political and malign aim is to 'stick it' to a probable future Conservative government in the UK by lumbering them with the second-worst British Prime Minister of recent times (after Gordon Brown himself, who is in my view unchallengeable as the biggest disaster to occupy 10 Downing Street in my adult memory) as the quasi-'President of Europe', a post created by the not-yet-ratified Lisbon Treaty, about which the British people have been denied the referendum they were promised by Labour (and other political parties) at the 2005 General Election by none other than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

In his usual hard-hitting fashion Guido 'nails' the whole fantastic idea for the nonsense it is, finally scuppered by the 'Jonah effect' of Mr Gordon Brown. Laughable!

The inflationary bubble that is being constructed

The video below is Peter Schiff's common sense reaction, as usual, to the US President's stimulus package.

But it could equally apply to the UK, with Gordon Brown and his 'quantitative easing' mumbo jumbo. People need to cut down their spending, not increase it. They need to save what they can in instruments which, history has shown, are immune from inflation. Basically that means gold and a few other commodities.

The current UK low inflation, erroneously called 'deflation' because we haven't actually seen any of that, however much Labour may huff and puff and try and spin it, will quickly (I'd say in 3 to 5 years) be replaced by the most awful bout of inflation when most people's wealth will simply be swept away. It's not an accident - it is what is being actively connived at by our malodorous government for purely selfish electoral reasons, which won't save it of course, but will leave the most awful mess for a successor government to try and resolve, i.e. the 'hated Tories' (TM Gordon Brown). It also has the 'advantage', in Labour's twisted logic, that it will push much of the remaining productive parts of the economy into the dead hands of the State - it's what socialism is all about. Please don't act all surprised - they may have got rid of 'Clause 4', but the basic agenda has never altered.



(thru AngloAustria)

Banks and bonuses

I spent my career in one of the world's largest international banks as it so happens. We had bonuses most years, probably every year (to my recollection) and for most people this was a 13th month of pay, usually paid out in December with the salaries for that month. Now whilst most people implicitly 'expected' to get this bonus, I do not think that anyone was under any illusion that it was anything other than discretionary on the part of the Board of Directors; certainly in every office or branch of the bank where I worked, receipt of that crucial telex from head office was eagerly awaited, giving authority to release the extra funds, after the Board had met. We never assumed it as a 'done deal' until that telex was received.

I find it difficult to understand how institutions which now exist only because they have been 'bailed out' with public funds should be paying ANY bonus at all. We are being told by government ministers that some of the banks which have received public recapitalisation and which are now effectively controlled and owned by the State have contractual obligations to pay certain specific bonuses. If so I would like those contracts to be scrutinised very meticulously, because they usually contain specific 'performance' clauses - so I find it difficult to understand how the level of employee who has such a specific bonus clause in a contract, presumably a pretty high-level grade of employee, can be totally unconnected with the issues which have caused these banks to 'implode'. Sure, some of these employees would be disappointed, angry even, if their bonuses were cancelled, but that is life - my personal investments in a number of banks and other types of company have taken a dramatic hit over the past year; they pay dividends when they make money, not when they don't and some have been effectively nationalised or have simply gone out of business. We are all suffering - banking executives within banks which have fouled up for one reason or another cannot expect to be insulated from these financial realities.

At the same time it is absolutely no business of the government to dictate to banks which have not required its assistance and who remain profitable to dictate to these banks how they should remunerate their employees. One of those banks, Barclays, has successfully resisted the government's frankly socialist agenda to try and grab a hold of most of the banking sector and has today announced its results which, whilst a reduction on previous years still remain reasonable and ahead of the market's expectations; it has also, because of the reduction in its profits last years, announced a substantial reduction in the bonuses it plans to pay out - that seems right and proper to me, but it is of course a choice for them to make, not the government.

The return to Socialism and the New Puritanism of Labour

Yesterday's 'pre-Budget' speech by Chancellor Darling has finally stirred even the BBC's political and economic correspondents to wonder where Labour under Brown is leading us. The 'solution' to our economic crisis, brought on by over-borrowing and over-spending by the public and Government over the past decade, is apparently to try and encourage more of the same to try and 'buy our way' out of the recession. I don't believe a word of this, of course - these policies are going to lead us even further into the mire in a few years time. The Government's only objective is to try and fool the voting public into voting for it at the next elections (European and Westminster), after which even they are now forced to admit that taxes will have to rise and government spending to fall, both substantially. The 'spin' from both the Government and, regrettably and embarrassingly the Bank of England, that 'deflation' is going to be more than a fleeting near-term problem is one I find exceedingly difficult to accept. I think that the government's continuing reckless reliance on borrowing (and debt-fuelled spending by the public to try and keep the economy turning) is going to result in further sterling weakness and the an increase in the cost of borrowing and that this will pretty soon feed through into severe inflation. The basic problem is that the government (and the US and other governments are pretty much the same) is afraid and reluctant to allow market-forces to do what needs to be done - to let failing banks fail and to let those who deal with such banks, borrowers and lenders, to suffer the consequences. Their fear results from concerns with their own electoral prospects, not to mention social stability. However, lancing this financial crisis by allowing that to happen, whilst exceedingly painful in the short-term unfortunately and inevitably, will result in a lot less long-lasting trauma. The real solution is to reduce and simplify taxation dramatically and to 'fund' this by slashing public expenditure and to give the Bank of England back much of the regulatory authority it lost when it was theoretically made independent of government interference in setting interest rates. The simplistic management-school idea of splitting regulatory authority amongst three groups has not worked - no one, in practice, knows who is in charge. The lie that 'capitalism' has failed needs to be attacked vociferously. Free market economies should not be unregulated economies, a subtle distinction that Labour apparatchiks such as Brown just don't 'get'.

Harriet Harman continues on her 'soundbite politics' and 'dog whistle' campaign against prostitution. Whilst I would agree that human 'trafficking', for sexual or other purposes, is deplorable, there are lots of undercurrents to what Ms Harman wants to see happen. Basically the government doesn't have the guts simply to ban prostitution (and perhaps even they know that such a ban would be largely futile), instead they propose ever more outlandish formulae for controlling and discouraging an activity of which they disapprove on moral grounds, using the 'cover' of trafficking to advance their agenda. I am neutral about prostitution; I don't believe that all prostitutes are coerced, although some/many(?) undoubtedly are, nor do I believe that all purchasers of such services are inherently wrong to do so; I would far rather see this age-old feature of human society recognised and regulated as a lawful activity for those that choose to pursue it - I think that would do a lot more to diminish unsavoury practices than Harriet Harman's shrill rants. The other strand to this government's moral duplicity is the emphasis on 'foreign' prostitutes; many of these foreign prostitutes probably come from other EU member states so have every right to be here, but Labour are undoubtedly using this phraseology as a way of trying to seem 'tough' on immigration to try and defuse the impact of far-right political parties on Labour's own electoral base; I've seen analyses over the past few days seeking to explain away the rise of far-right political support mainly in traditional Labour areas by saying that this is 'inevitable' because Labour areas tend to be more urban, whereas Conservative/LibDem areas tend to be more rural. Possibly there is some truth in this, but I think it is more probably simply a reflection of the more authoritarian mind-set of most people on the 'left' of politics - the lie that the BNP, for example (which I have tacitly played along with above, but only for the sake of making what I am writing comprehensible to readers, not because I believe it myself!) is 'right-wing' is clear to anyone who compares certain aspects of their policies (on their website) with the policies that the Labour government has been busy furthering these past 11 and a half years - ID cards, centralised databases, higher taxation, dramatically-increased state control of most economic sectors, incompetent economic management, centralised decision-making, etc, etc. The urban/rural split cannot explain away these factors. The original title I had in mind for this article was "The return to Socialism and the New Fascism of Labour" and perhaps, on reflection, that would have been just as appropriate.

Barclays and freedom from government meddling

I have become increasingly infuriated over recent weeks by the naked ambition of the Labour government, and its apologists and hangers-on, to bring about the effective nationalisation of much of the banking sector of the UK. This was made excruciatingly obvious at the end of last week by the strident criticism of Barclays Bank in 'daring' to spurn the capital funding offered by the government and instead to make its own arrangements to procure the required capital funding to boost its capital ratios to the levels now required by the FSA - there were even idiotic and disingenuous comments that it was somehow 'unpatriotic' for Barclays to be seeking funding outside the UK. Stuff and nonsense! The Labour government tells us regularly that it believes in the 'free market', but the past few weeks have revealed what I have always believed - that given half a chance they would revert to their 'socialist' roots and seek to take even more of the productive parts of the economy into public ownership - there to stifle all initiative and creative activity. Just look at what has happened to Northern Rock since it had the misfortune to fall into the State's hands. The bickering over the merger of HBOS with Lyoyds TSB, complicated because of the desire by some to see theoretical 'management' stay in Scotland (as if that has really existed ever since Bank of Scotland merged with Halifax some years ago) has thrown this ulterior motive into sharp relief, and in order to achieve this the 'socialists' (in both the Labour and Scottish National Parties) would rather see Bank of Scotland fall even more blatantly into the hands of the State.

Fraser Nelson has an excellent article in the Coffee House at the Spectator which reproduces a letter from Barclays Chief Executive John Varley to staff about what the Board has decided is best for the company's future.

As a small shareholder in several of the British banks involved in the current government bail-outs, as well as a couple of those which have, thankfully, been able to avoid this fate (including Barclays), I have to state clearly that I applaud Barclays' actions. My own investment portfolio has suffered badly in recent months (to the tune of several tens of thousands of pounds), as has everyone else's as a proportion of their overall holdings I expect, but I am very clear that I would rather that the companies I invest in remain free of even partial government ownership - the criticism of some lenders for not passing on base rate reductions to borrowing customers is clear enough evidence that the government's claims that it would not try to interfere in the management of the banks it has managed to get its claws into is just so much empty rhetoric. As a saver I have also suffered a reduction in the rates I am being paid - all in the cause of the banks trying to maintain and increase their margins. It is true that some banks have behaved very foolishly - but they have been prevented from suffering their just fates (bankruptcy) because of the desire of the government to 'protect' depositors and mortgage borrowers - I put 'protect' in quotes because what the government is really doing is trying to protect its own voter base at the next election, NOT the longer-term interests of either depositors or mortgage borrowers. Pain averted now is merely a greater pain delayed until the future by the distortion of the markets in which the government has indulged.

NewLabour's brave new 'State Bank' Britain

Once again, with the said-to-be imminent nationalisation of the Bradford & Bingley, the Labour Party and, unfortunately still our Government, revert to type and jump in to nationalise another financial sector company.

There is already deposit protection for the vast bulk of depositors so what is the fuss about? If the market has lost faith in this bank it should be allowed to fail; then the long slow process of allowing the market to heal itself could begin. But no, the government wants, at all costs (and it will be very high for taxpayers for many years to come), to be 'seen to be doing something', even if it is the wrong thing. I can't even begin to remember how many times I have heard ministers from this sad excuse for a government tell us how much they believe in the market, but it doesn't take much for them to revert to type and start to take things back into State ownership - remember this (in my main website's comment section before I began this blog) and the follow-out when the truth was forced out of him (Stephen Byers) here - completely different subject as it concerns the rail network, but the same principles seem to apply. Seems a long time ago now, doesn't it?

However, on the laterst banking nationalisation fiasco which is about to hit us, John Redwood has some pertinent questions, as usual.

Cuba - still the same old socialist nightmare!

Cuban blogger Yoani Sánchez has had to miss out on collecting her Ortega y Gasset digital journalism prize from Spain's El Pais newspaper in Madrid, for her blog which is often critical of Cuba's government, because the Cuban authorities "were unable to process her travel visa application in time". A likely story!

Labour don't like it up 'em - sore losers in Scotland

Look, so far as I'm concerned, a plague on both SNP and Labour houses! I make no secret of my less than cordial views about anything that bears the taint of 'socialism', a political philosophy which has proved itself in practice to be quite inimical to 'democracy', wherever in the world it has been tried, despite the theories upon which it is supposed to be based (*). However, Alex Salmond is now First Minister of Scotland having been successful in 'besting' the Labour political machine in Scotland in a more or less fair fight.

Labour, both in Scotland itself and the London leadership are having great difficulty coming to terms with the 'will of the people'; I'm not particularly happy about it either, but I have to live with it just like everyone else. However, for a better example of churlishness than this example from Labour you will have to search hard. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (not to mention Tom McCabe) need to grow up, and fast!!



Even Her Majesty the Queen got in a helicopter to Holyroodhouse to receive Her new First Minister and from the television reports I have seen both behaved with impeccable decorum, whatever their private thoughts might have been. It's time for Tony Blair to quit his global perambulations and meet with the new Scottish Executive - and to do it with magnanimity and grace. As for Gordon Brown, well he has just confirmed to everyone who ever sees the ghastly television footage above how unfitted he is to be Prime Minister - 'pathetic' and embarrassment (for him) are the words that come to mind.

(*) I've expressed the same kind of thoughts before in this blog, and occasionally in comments in other blogs, and generally there has been at least one apologist for 'socialism' who has criticised me for my blanket condemnation. Tough! Name me one country in the world where 'socialism' has resulted in long-term benefit for the people it is theoretically designed to help. Some things 'socialists' do have proved positive, I grant you, but the overall results of this pernicious system are always overwhelmingly negative for the human condition. You are welcome to try and demonstrate otherwise. A small suggestion - the record of the Labour government over the past ten years under Blair and Brown would not, in my view, be a good place to start.

Tommy Sheridan predicts seven seats for his new 'Solidarity' Party

As I don't follow the minutiae of the 'ferrets in a sack' antics of Scotland's socialist fringe political parties I was only vaguely aware of Tommy Sheridan's new political vehicle, created since his bust-up with the Scottish Socialist Party. However this undoubtedly charismatic individual is predicting his new Solidarity Party could win seven seats at the elections for the Scottish Parliament in May. Unlikely, in my view, but any political party to which he lends his name is almost bound to have some impact so I wouldn't entirely discount the possibility that Solidarity might gain a few. Unfortunately hard-line socialism is not yet dead in parts of [mostly Central-belt] Scotland, even if most former socialist/communist 'paradises on earth' have re-evaluated their own social systems in the light of the chronic failure of his brand of socialism to improve the lives of ordinary people, a practical lesson which Scotland has so far (thankfully) been spared.

PS/ And then there is this charming remark from Colin Fox, present Convener of the Scottish Socialist Party, when talking about Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell:

"I've never been one for name calling in politics. Tony Benn insists politics should be about policies and not personalities. I agree. But you could say Jack McConnell is an ape. I am not saying he has a hairy back you understand. It's just that he loyally apes everything Blair does. Blair supports Trident Two, so wee Jack McConnell says 'I support Trident Too'. Blair supports 20 more nuclear power stations, Jack says 'I support 20 more nuclear power stations too'. Blair supports the illegal and barbarous war in Iraq, Jack McConnell supports it too."

Now no-one can accuse me of being a supporter of 'poor wee' Jack McConnell, but really this talk about him being an 'ape' is just silly, in the sense of being childish; we are all 'apes' of course in the Naked Ape sense. I would hope that the debates leading upto the election could be conducted at a slightly more serious grown-up level. As for the SSP slogan (look at the background to the image of Mr Fox in the linked article), my sense is that socialism will be consigned to history long before capitalism ever is!

Tax in Britain under Labour - by 18 Doughty Street

Is tax, and the way it seems to have gone up in recent years (since May 1997 in fact) getting you down? This video clip by 18 Doughty Street highlights the issue of where tax could strike next - collecting your rubbish by the local council for example (not a joke apparently, according to a segment on BBC Breakfast this morning). A tax to pay for our political parties? - well, they've thought of what wheeze already, too!

Like everyone else who pays tax in Britain I know how much various taxes (mainly of the 'stealth' variety!) have gone up under our socialist government and been squandered on Gordon Brown's so-called 'sound' economic management; what will he try if/when he becomes Prime Minister? And the horrible thing is that no mainstream Party offers any other agenda, only the wacko fringe outfits.
(thru Gavin Ayling)

The consequence of living in a 'socialist paradise'

Vietnam's Communist Party General Secretary Nong Duc Manh has criticised the 'morals' of some party members, because they show too much 'individualism' which is here used as code to describe the climate of graft and corruption which has been the subject of recent revelations in the local press. This worthy apparatchick opines:

"Improving revolutionary morals must go along with giving up individualism."

- the repressive nature of a 'socialist' regime, as encapsulated in this official exhortation, indicates clearly why such social systems are never particularly successful over the longer term, for they run counter to the natural instincts of human beings wherever they are which is to favour, generally speaking, family and friends over others. In a repressive system such as operates in Vietnam, and formerly operated in much of the communist world, the only outlet for such natural instincts is a lifetime of disobedience to official dictates, usually in minor ways that have become the 'way things are done' in such societies where petty officials expect small favours for performing their duties on behalf of the citizen, specially because their own wages are usually derisory, even if supplemented by special privileges (very low cost, but ghastly, accommodation and various benefits in kind), but in reality very little with which to take part in the cash economy (you know, to acquire those little 'luxuries' such as a refigerator or shoes and clothes, or even if they are lucky a television).

In any socialist country I have ever lived in (such as Vietnam or even France during the period it flirted with socialism in Mitterand's early years as President) or visited (China, the former USSR, East Germany, etc) the lives of locals were constrained by such factors. Official dogma is that loosening the screws on the pressure cooker that is such a society will result in complete anarchy and rampant corruption, a fear that is perhaps to a certain extent justified (just look at Russia) until people get used to the way a more free system operates and crucially until a legal and justice system is put in place which commands the general respect of most citizens most of the time. One of the functions of a sound legal and justice system is to put in place rules which will to some extent limit the freedom of the individual and his/her more selfish instincts whilst still permitting a climate of entrepreneurship to flourish, benefitting everyone in the long run. None of this exists in Vietnam or in any socialist system where the whole attitude of the average citizen is to have as little to do with the hierarchy and officialdom of the ruling Party as they can.

Unfortunately the good Ong Manh does not show even the faintest glimmer of understanding the real problems facing a society such as his Party (for the moment) governs, so his ability to see potential solutions is suspect. He no doubt sees his main function as being to maintain the primacy of the Communist Party; in my view this is not a solution, it is the major problem, even if the ideal for such a society as Vietnam and perhaps many in East Asia with their joint histories of Confucianism and Buddhism is rather more 'collectivist' and less 'individualist' than we are familiar with in Westerm countries. That it can be done there successfully is shown by such countries as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.