Let us make the absurd supposition for a moment that there is a God.
If God can intervene to save the world but doesn’t, then he’s a sadistic voyeur. If God lacks the power to intervene in human affairs and weeps as a loving onlooker, then he’s useless.
It seems to me that in any kind of rational argument about what will or will not happen talking about God is a red herring.
26 March 2009
19 March 2009
Political exclusions from Britain
People should only be banned from visiting the UK to argue their political case, if it likely that they will commit crimes here. However we see the power of exclusion used against people simply because the government disapproves of their opinions or they may cause the government embarrassment.
New Labour’s exclusion policy is but one aspect of its attack on civil liberties.
What I think is not sufficiently understood is that exclusion does not just take way rights from the excluded person, but from the British people who invited them or who want to meet them.
I think Wilders, for instance, is a bigoted rightwing twit. But why should those who want to talk to him in person have to travel to the Netherlands to do so? Imagine the outcry if the Netherlands responded by following New Labour’s example and banning British parliamentarians.
The exclusion of nasty, but non-criminal, people from the UK threatens British freedom.
New Labour’s exclusion policy is but one aspect of its attack on civil liberties.
What I think is not sufficiently understood is that exclusion does not just take way rights from the excluded person, but from the British people who invited them or who want to meet them.
I think Wilders, for instance, is a bigoted rightwing twit. But why should those who want to talk to him in person have to travel to the Netherlands to do so? Imagine the outcry if the Netherlands responded by following New Labour’s example and banning British parliamentarians.
The exclusion of nasty, but non-criminal, people from the UK threatens British freedom.
18 March 2009
Don't consider economics without politics
Unfortunately many articles don't really say anything other than the capitalist economy is cyclical with expansion and contraction.
What I find missing from these articles is not so much empirical data, but a false separation of the economic from the political. The thirty years of market fundamentalism marched alongside a profound shift in politics in both Britain and US. There is a hidden assumption that the upturn when it comes will take place in a political configuration akin to that of the 1990s or early 2000s.
The economic ideology that underpinned 1979-2009 has now fallen apart; unemployment, debt and poverty are multiplying. There is today a feeling of a phoney war as socio-political pressure builds up. It is highly unlikely that in the next half decade there won’t be major political changes which will themselves impact on economic structures.
What I find missing from these articles is not so much empirical data, but a false separation of the economic from the political. The thirty years of market fundamentalism marched alongside a profound shift in politics in both Britain and US. There is a hidden assumption that the upturn when it comes will take place in a political configuration akin to that of the 1990s or early 2000s.
The economic ideology that underpinned 1979-2009 has now fallen apart; unemployment, debt and poverty are multiplying. There is today a feeling of a phoney war as socio-political pressure builds up. It is highly unlikely that in the next half decade there won’t be major political changes which will themselves impact on economic structures.
17 March 2009
Privatising welfare the last straw
Privatising welfare is more about supporting the profits of the companies concerned than it is about helping recipients.
New Labour is no longer just disapproved of or simply unpopular, it is hated and despised on account of its corruption, lying and total betrayal of ordinary working people. Many would like to hang the lot of them from the lampposts on Whitehall.
That means that honest men and women can no long be the left wing of this monstrosity. If you want a hearing and you want to organise for ordinary working people, you need to break with the whole rotten New Labour edifice.
New Labour is no longer just disapproved of or simply unpopular, it is hated and despised on account of its corruption, lying and total betrayal of ordinary working people. Many would like to hang the lot of them from the lampposts on Whitehall.
That means that honest men and women can no long be the left wing of this monstrosity. If you want a hearing and you want to organise for ordinary working people, you need to break with the whole rotten New Labour edifice.
16 March 2009
Thirty years of market fundamentalism was the wrong path
Undoubtedly the political impasse of the 1970s characterised by intensified class and other conflict did not represent the ideal society. Neither left nor right claimed that it did. What was unfortunate, I believe, was that Thatcherism emerged as the so-called solution to this crisis.
In essence, Thatcherism was about centralised authoritarianism which was used to weaken democracy and smash working class power. Inequality and poverty soared in the new framework of unbridled capitalism; and it was this model that has been continued and deepened by New Labour.
The thirty years of market fundamentalism after 1979 were not ones of joy, security and abundance for many. Britain became a society increasingly scarred by an insecure flexible workforce burdened with debt. While the poor rotted on crime-ridden junk estates, at the top the rich lived a life of luxury giving Britain a socio-economic profile like the countries of Latin America.
Today even the service and finance sectors (the sole economic achievement) have imploded with Britain having little left to show for all the pain of Thatcherism. I believe that had Thatcher never existed and had Tony Benn won a couple of elections in the last thirty years, Britain would be a better place today.
In essence, Thatcherism was about centralised authoritarianism which was used to weaken democracy and smash working class power. Inequality and poverty soared in the new framework of unbridled capitalism; and it was this model that has been continued and deepened by New Labour.
The thirty years of market fundamentalism after 1979 were not ones of joy, security and abundance for many. Britain became a society increasingly scarred by an insecure flexible workforce burdened with debt. While the poor rotted on crime-ridden junk estates, at the top the rich lived a life of luxury giving Britain a socio-economic profile like the countries of Latin America.
Today even the service and finance sectors (the sole economic achievement) have imploded with Britain having little left to show for all the pain of Thatcherism. I believe that had Thatcher never existed and had Tony Benn won a couple of elections in the last thirty years, Britain would be a better place today.
13 March 2009
New Labour should not have access to and independent currency
I have no faith that New Labour can manage the current economic crisis. Had they taken into public ownership the bankrupted banks, and used the new printed money to invest in industry through a public enterprise board, I would have supported the continuation of an independent currency to make that possible.
Instead we have billions printed and wasted in the banking sector for no gain for ordinary people. For that reason I would prefer the Euro, so my savings would be more likely to keep their value and Gordon would not have access to the printing press.
Instead we have billions printed and wasted in the banking sector for no gain for ordinary people. For that reason I would prefer the Euro, so my savings would be more likely to keep their value and Gordon would not have access to the printing press.
Thatcher is to blame for the current crisis
Undoubtedly the political impasse of the 1970s characterised by intensified class and other conflict did not represent the ideal society. Neither left nor right claimed that it did. What was unfortunate was that Thatcherism emerged as the so-called solution to this crisis.
In essence, Thatcherism was about centralised authoritarianism which was used to weaken democracy and smash working class power. Inequality and poverty soared in the new framework of unbridled capitalism; and it was this model that has been continued and deepened by New Labour.
Thatcher gave birth to a socio-economic regime which both pulled apart the social fabric and which has now failed in its own economic terms. Blaming Thatcherism is fully justified. Had the miners won in 1984-5 she would have been stopped in her tracks; the rest is the what-ifs of history.
In essence, Thatcherism was about centralised authoritarianism which was used to weaken democracy and smash working class power. Inequality and poverty soared in the new framework of unbridled capitalism; and it was this model that has been continued and deepened by New Labour.
Thatcher gave birth to a socio-economic regime which both pulled apart the social fabric and which has now failed in its own economic terms. Blaming Thatcherism is fully justified. Had the miners won in 1984-5 she would have been stopped in her tracks; the rest is the what-ifs of history.
A conditional right to privacy
I think the key point is missing in your article.
People do have a right to privacy in their private lives: i.e. what they legally do in their private space, even for people who hold public positions. So Max Moseley was right to argue that his private sexual activity should not have been splashed across the tabloids for public titillation.
Such privacy, however, should be lost if the person makes public representations which contradict their own behaviour. In other words had Moseley said or implied in public that he disapproved of sadomasochism, the press would have the right to rebut his utterance with evidence of his own behaviour.
Such a privacy law would, I believe, provide both privacy and reduce much of moralistic hypocrisy spouted by our politicians.
People do have a right to privacy in their private lives: i.e. what they legally do in their private space, even for people who hold public positions. So Max Moseley was right to argue that his private sexual activity should not have been splashed across the tabloids for public titillation.
Such privacy, however, should be lost if the person makes public representations which contradict their own behaviour. In other words had Moseley said or implied in public that he disapproved of sadomasochism, the press would have the right to rebut his utterance with evidence of his own behaviour.
Such a privacy law would, I believe, provide both privacy and reduce much of moralistic hypocrisy spouted by our politicians.
The right to internet privacy
There are two types of information about which people are particularly sensitive.
Many people use the internet to access pornography and have discreet encounters with others. Records of this activity could potentially be used for blackmail or vindictive embarrassment by criminals or by the state.
Some people (too few in my opinion) use the internet to make political statements. People fear that they could face discrimination in employment or become subject to state surveillance as a result.
Privacy is a valuable right not a luxury.
Many people use the internet to access pornography and have discreet encounters with others. Records of this activity could potentially be used for blackmail or vindictive embarrassment by criminals or by the state.
Some people (too few in my opinion) use the internet to make political statements. People fear that they could face discrimination in employment or become subject to state surveillance as a result.
Privacy is a valuable right not a luxury.
The British military is in a mess
Such a chaotic state of affairs can only exist precisely because fortunately Britain is threatened by nobody, and all Blair’s wars have been symbolic wars of choice launched against the weak.
Britain should withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as well as scrapping its order for US Trident replacements. Instead British defence should focus only on European security with a small well paid and well equipped military.
Britain should lose both its delusion of grandeur and its desire to play first lieutenant to the United States.
Britain should withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as well as scrapping its order for US Trident replacements. Instead British defence should focus only on European security with a small well paid and well equipped military.
Britain should lose both its delusion of grandeur and its desire to play first lieutenant to the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)