Category Archives: British Politics

Sack no Soldiers; Sack no Coppers; Sack no Nurses

Posted on by
Reply

I wish I had their confidence. The government is so convinced there could be no Mumbai-style attack in Britain they are cutting back on every resource we might need to deal with it. And as Liam Fox, Defence Secretary, told a Chatham House conference yesterday, there is more to come. He is right to say, “Tackling the crisis in the public finances is not just an issue of economics but an issue of national security too,” but as I asked in a post last year, “Should economic reality trump military necessity?” After all, we either spend the money and defend ourselves adequately, or we have no need for budgets for anything. This is a matter of survival, plain and simple.

Al-Qaeda could continue to target London, or they might do what the IRA did and seek out softer targets where they can stage what they also now call a “spectacular” with a higher percentage of success. In other words, an attack could happen anywhere in the country and we need the resources to cope with it throughout the country. But what are we doing instead?

Defence:
Reducing front-line capabilities, but not tackling top-heavy administration.

Police:
Reducing front-line capabilities, but not tackling top-heavy administration.

NHS:
Reducing front-line capabilities, but not tackling top-heavy administration.

As Rolf Harris used to say, “Can you see anything yet?” Is there a pattern emerging? Yes there is. Soldiers, policemen and nurses are bearing the brunt of the cut-backs, but not the generals, police chiefs and hospital administrators. Yet in a Mumbai-style attack, the police will be the first on the scene, large numbers of casualties will need to be taken to hospitals, and ultimately the army will need to be called in to assist as even a small number of armed terrorists rampaging through a city would be beyond the resources of any local police force. The police and medical services would still be stretched even if the attack was a series of coordinated bombings across a city. I ought to acknowledge that the fire service also has a vital role to play in these scenarios.

The government needs to focus attention on making the cuts where they are most warranted – at the highest levels, and not where they are most damaging – at the front line.

What part of “We’re at war” do you not understand?

Posted on by
2

The release of dozens of convicted terrorists coupled with cutbacks in the defence budget indicates the government have a fatal misunderstanding of the peril we are in. Al Qaeda is at war with us, they seek to destroy us absolutely and impose their especially brutal version of Sharia law worldwide. The government are certainly aware of the threat and are devoting significant resources to combating it. Yet it seems that threat has to be offset against competing needs on the purse strings. Shall we build a new warship or shall we fund the Tyne and Wear Metro? Shall we have combat aircraft on the new carriers or shall we let Vodafone keep several billion pounds in unpaid tax?

The most glaring evidence of our disconnect from reality is our treatment of enemy combatants. We treat them as civilians, which they are most certainly not. To appreciate the absurdity of this, imagine treating Argentine troops the same way during the Falklands War. We did not haul them before the local magistrate and charge them with trespass, or being in possession of a 155mm Howitzer without a firearms license. They were not given suspended sentences with warnings to their future conduct and they were not sent back to their units to continue fighting.

Captured enemy combatants are prisoners of war. They are held in detention for the duration of hostilities. They are accorded all their rights under the Geneva Convention.

Should economic reality trump military necessity?

Posted on by
1

These have to be the happiest of days for pacifists. With a growing sense of disillusionment with our wars and our ability to fight wars, the Strategic Defence and Security Review just heaps joy upon joy for them. Now the Royal Navy is to be saddled with two massive aircraft carriers, useless without aircraft and which the Navy must scrap much of its surface fleet to pay for. The Army and the Royal Air Force, both apparently clinging to the need to defend Northern Europe from a Soviet Pact invasion, a threat that vanished decades ago, have sacrificed everything else to keep that dream alive. All of which leaves brave men and women fighting in the front line to pay the ultimate price for years of neglect.

Who should the finger of blame point towards? The last government appointed some of the most breathtakingly incompetent ministers in our history, but if they are given no leadership from above, and they are never held to account in Parliament, is it their fault for being useless or ours for letting them get away with it? And if the Ministry of Defence is run by clowns, have our top generals and admirals been moulded by their environment or are they equally culpable for the mismanagement of the department over many years? It’s hard to imagine how any senior officer who puts the case for military need above that of political expediency can further his career.

And that is a large part of the problem. We have far too many senior officers scrambling up the greasy pole to collect more stars before retiring to a comfortable job in the defence industry which is  milking and bilking the defence budget. We already have more admirals than ships even before the planned round of cutbacks. But the bloated empire that is Whitehall will not be scaled back accordingly. It will be the soldier, the sailor, and the airman who will again bear the brunt of economic cutbacks. There will be fewer of them, with poorer equipment, and less of it. All of which ignores the fact that we are in a hot, shooting war with al Qaeda.

We need to confront terrorism everywhere. We need to tackle its radicalising influence here in the UK, and we need to be capable of responding to terrorist incidents or preferably of detecting and preventing them beforehand. We need to be tracking them down to their training camps and flushing them out of their safe havens, worldwide. That’s why we were in Afghanistan originally, that’s why we should be in the North West Provinces if the Pakistan government won’t assist. Hot spots of radial Islam in Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia and elsewhere also need to be brought into the equation and we need to deal with those politically if at all possible but militarily if not.

To do this we need more military resources, not fewer. We need more armed police or territorial army manpower ready to deal with a Mumbai-style attack wherever it might occur. That means more soldiers and army camps across Britain. We need sufficient emergency resources to cope with casualties after a bomb attack, again wherever it might occur which means more ambulances, hospitals and medics across the country. And we need intelligence gathering to tell us what the terrorists are planning. We also need to engage with moderate Moslems, to counter the extremist views being put across by radical clerics, and to reassure them that this isn’t a war against Islam.

But we also need to be able to deploy an independent army to any location in the world. Fully equipped, fully trained, and fully supported on land, sea and in the air. We should not require support from any other country to do this, but we should be ready and willing to support others should we be called upon to do so. Finally, and most important, we need the political will. Defence expenditure is not something to be weighed against other peace-time budgetary considerations. It’s not a choice between a new warship or a cross-rail link. We either spend the money and defend ourselves adequately, or we have no need for budgets for anything. This is a matter of survival, plain and simple. We are at war.

These may not be happy days for pacifists after all.  White Poppy, anyone?

Car Park Tax – A Jobsworth’s Dream

Posted on by
Reply

Just when it seemed likely that a few out of countless thousands of civil servants might lose their jobs so councils can balance their budgets, along comes a hare-brained scheme straight out of New Labour’s play book. The complications involving a work-place parking tax are quite possibly too many to enumerate, meaning that legions of civil servants would be required to manage it. Or it would be contracted out at great expense leaving nothing for the public purse. And for what? Yet another burden on the hapless taxpayer.

For starters, this is a tax on jobs. This is a pet topic of mine, the extent to which we put barriers in the way of anyone who wants to employ people in this country. We tax them through Employers NIC, a direct tax on jobs, and we burden them with endless red tape, an indirect tax on jobs. No wonder it is easier to export jobs and cut costs. This has to be the killer argument against a workplace parking tax, it’s yet another burden at a time when we desperately want to see more jobs being created.

Then we can start to think of all the practical implications, the million little complications that somebody has to deal with.

Does a company pass the cost on to its employees? Or does it just swallow the charge? Indeed, does a council have to pay the charge to itself or does it charge its own employees? Does a charity have to pay? Does the owner of an empty office block have to pay? Can a company eliminate all of its parking spaces to save the charge, perhaps by grassing them over and turning them into lawns and flower beds? Can a company install parking meters so they are no longer providing free parking? Would that be valid even if they charged only a penny per day? Or a pound per day? Would the council have to employ inspectors to go round and ensure companies were enforcing parking charges? If you are self-employed and you normally work from home, do you have to pay a charge for parking on your own driveway? Or would you have to put up a parking meter as well? Do visitor parking spaces count? Do hospitals and fire stations have to pay for parking places for emergency vehicles? If not, what counts as an emergency vehicle?

If a company does pass the charge on to its employees, do they have to pay if they are on holiday? Or sick? What if they start at the company part-way through the year? Or leave part-way through? What if they belong to a car pool, do they pay a proportion or does each employee pay the full charge? What if an employee is paying the charge but there frequently isn’t anywhere for them to park? Or they only occasionally bring the car to work? What counts as occasional use? What if there’s a transport strike and more employees have to use their cars temporarily, will they have to pay? But if they don’t, will regular car users still have to pay? What if the transport strike only affects one group of employees, for example those who normally travel to work by train?

It’s not just a local council issue either as central government must surely become involved. Will the charge, if levied on the employee, be tax deductible? If it is not tax deductible and it is not passed on to the employee, is it a taxable benefit in kind? Is National Insurance payable on it as well? Is the charge liable to VAT?

Seriously, this is another ill-thought out gimmick like the Robin Hood Tax.

The hypocrites that used to be our government

Posted on by
Reply

So Alun Milburn may be joining the Coalition government. I’m not really surprised by the reaction of some of his former colleagues. Instead of seeing this as a PR opportunity to crow that only Labour could represent the poor and disadvantaged, these selfish individuals, who actually could not care less about the poor and disadvantaged, are screaming that he is a class traitor. A “collaborator” says John “Two Jags” Prescott, who would doubtless be overjoyed if the poor and disadvantaged suffered even more. Milburn’s critics, remember, are the people who imposed extra taxes on the poor while cutting them for the super-rich.

Frankly, I am dismayed at his appointment. I am convinced a true believer in free markets and the enterprise economy would have a more significant and longer lasting impact than he possibly could. But I don’t doubt that his heart’s in the right place, I’m just once again reminded of one reason why the last Labour government were a disaster for this country, rich and poor alike.

The Sikh Regiment – has the time come?

Posted on by
Reply

I posted this on MyTel about three years ago, but with a Coalition government now in office and Cameron visiting India at present, I wonder if it’s the right time to raise the issue again?

The MoD liked the idea then, do they now? The CRE hated the idea then, isn’t it about time they were told where to go?

The original post:

I love the Sikhs. Of all the troubles we read about in today’s religion-obsessed world, none of them are caused by Sikhs. To my knowledge they stand for principles, loyalty, honour, family values and service to the community, plus whatever other qualities you can think to name. They have also served the British Crown loyally and valiantly for more than a century. You would think the Ministry of Defence would be delighted to be approached by leaders of the Sikh community with the suggestion of forming a Sikh regiment and the assurance they would have no trouble finding 700 willing volunteers. And the MoD were delighted. Delighted that is, until they spoke to the Commission for Racial Equality who vetoed the idea.

Sikh soldiers in the Indian Army

The CRE, which itself has a dreadfully racist record of employment, has a vested interest in perpetuating the race relations industry and saddling this country with insane policies. It is also highly selective in its approach. Saying “the creation of a separate regiment according to ethnicity would be segregation, which amounts to discrimination under the Race Relations Act” is to defy common sense. The British Army has for centuries formed regiments along ethnic lines, and why? Because they work. Society is entirely happy with the idea of the Irish Guards, the Scots Guards and the Welsh Guards. They take recruits on ethnic grounds from all across the UK. There is no conceivable reason why the Sikhs cannot do the same.

I hope common sense will prevail and Sikh leaders and the Ministry of Defence will decide to ignore the CRE and go ahead with this inspiring proposal.

I’ve copied my post above to save you all a little trouble and to start a fresh stream of comments, here is the link to it:

Another skirmish in the race relations war

Stars and Strops

Posted on by
Reply

Somebody needs to remind that arrogant and useless talking shop that is the US Senate that we achieved independence from the United States back in 1776. On July 4th to be exact. And while David Cameron may be keen to point out that we are the junior partner in the “Special Relationship” it is nonetheless that: we are a partner not a colony.

So if the Senators think our contribution would help their enquiries and they wish to have input from British and Scottish ministers, they should get off their backsides and come over here. Throwing their toys out of the pram isn’t going to get them anywhere and nor should it.

UPDATE 30 July

Seems Sentor Menendez is now considering sending someone over here to conduct interviews. I think that’s the right thing to do, and I hope the government might extend the courtesy of offering the use of a committee room in Westminster. That would avoid the obviously awkward symbolism of witnesses having to turn up at the American Embassy.

And on a related note, the same “We are now independent of you” message needs to be sent to Alex Salmond who is quoted as saying there’s no way on Earth the senate committee is going to hold a hearing in London or Scotland. You can say that about Scotland, Mr Salmond, but not about London.

Last of the Summer Whine

Posted on by
Reply

Two residents of Holmfirth have fallen out with their council over a £130,000 pedestrian crossing directly in front of their home.

£130,000 puffin crossing ‘unusable’ [Daily Telegraph]

On the face of it, this is a simple case of two planning decisions overlapping with unintended consequences. I wouldn’t fault Kirklees Council or the Wrays over this, except perhaps that the Council were a bit mean to even consider banning the Wrays from using their driveway.

What I do find astonishing, however, is the cost of the crossing. £130,000 seems an extraordinary amount of money for not a lot really. Four traffic light units, two poles, two push-button units, one controller. Presumably there were two advance signposts warning motorists as well, one from each direction. So dig four holes, a trench across the road to link the two sets of traffic lights, another trench to the nearest electricity supply, make good and daub a bit of paint on the road. Job done. It’s not as if they’re building a house.

That amount of money would have paid the wages of a labourer for eight years, and still have left enough to buy the equipment. Or, they could have taken two people off the dole and given them a flag instead. They could have worked daytime shifts and manned the crossing for four years, flagging down traffic any time someone wanted to cross the road. I’m assuming the £130,000 includes maintenance, otherwise the cost will be much higher yet, so my scheme would have to include the cost of a spare flag in case the first one broke.

Just how competitive is the tendering process?

Has it been stifled by red tape?

Lights, Camera, Action

Posted on by
Reply

Most commentators have stopped saying Derrick Bird “snapped” and are now thrashing around instead to find his motive. I think we may need to go back forty years for that. Derrick Bird was born in 1957, and I think it may be significant that he was born within a few years of two other mass-murders, Michael Ryan (Hungerford) born in 1960, Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane) born in 1952. So I think it’s not the year they committed their crime that matters, nor their age at the time, but that they were young and impressionable when Hollywood released films such as these:

Get Carter (1971)
High Plains Drifter (1973)
Death Wish (1974)
The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

These were highly acclaimed ultra-violent films that dealt with retribution, portraying a solitary individual successfully exacting revenge and being widely admired by the cinema-going pubic for it. Allowing of course that each of these three murderers had different “triggers” that prompted them to put their fantasies into effect, I do think it’s possible films such as these could have provided them with a rationale for their actions. That was to settle scores and die in a blaze of glory. In their world, the outcomes were justified.

Here’s the score-settling tally for Bird: He settled scores with his brother and the family solicitor over a family dispute; he settled scores with his taxi-driving colleagues over alleged fare stealing; he tried to settle a score with a scuba-diving instructor; and he targeted passers-by seemingly at random. I wonder if they weren’t as random as we imagine, but perhaps they represented fare-paying passengers who he felt had disrespected him in some way. I can certainly imagine as a taxi driver he might have a problem with cyclists. I’m not saying all taxi drivers do or should, but seeing as he now seems to be an intolerant individual maybe he saw cyclists generally as a nuisance. So, see one, kill one. Likewise if he sees someone who reminds him of passengers who never tip, or someone who might have thrown-up in his cab once, or maybe even the guy who robbed him. It’s death by association.

You need the means and you need the motive to carry out something like this, but I think you also crucially need the self-justification.

Outrage >> Knee >> Jerk

Posted on by
Reply

It had to happen. It’s been years since we had a shooting outrage, but within minutes of the latest one, and on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever, we have the first knee-jerk reactions calling for tighter gun control.

First of all it has been reported that this guy held his license for 15 years. Is there any possibility whatsoever we could make gun license applicants wait fifteen years to see if they were going to do anything stupid? On top of all the other existing conditions and restrictions? Would that work? Of course not. In the 15 years he held his license, some 750 people (as near as I can find out right now) have been shot dead by people not licensed to carry guns.

It is suggested that he “snapped”, perhaps provoked in a family dispute. It has also been reported he told a taxi driver he’d argued with the night before, “There’s going to be a rampage tomorrow,” and then he went home and armed himself with two weapons. He was dissuaded on that occasion by a friend’s daughter. I feel desperately sorry for her right now, how must she feel? But at that point, even then could he have been stopped? How many people get angry but never follow through? Could she have reported him? What if it turned out he was only making an idle threat? It must happen a million times. How about the hospital where he is supposed to have gone for help, only to be turned away?

In the event, after killing his twin brother, he calmly went to the home of the family solicitor, waited for him and killed him, before going to Whitehaven to settle a grudge with former co-drivers. That done, and all in cold blood, he went off on his killing spree. It doesn’t seem to me he “snapped”, he made a calculated decision and followed it through. Even the killing of his brother could not have been a “snap” decision, it occurred at a quarry and not at the home of either of them. So they met there, and Bird took his guns with him.

How do we legislate against that, other than “No guns, no way”? I think everyone who’s asking that question right now is asking the wrong question. I would be much more interested in a debate about personal responsibility. He was able to rationalise his actions before he took them. How did he get there? I think that’s the more frightening aspect.