The House of Epimenides

Past, present, future.

2004-09-16T17:33:00.000+01:00

To my chagrin, frequency of posting has been appalling. My computer informs me that my last post was on the 1st of May, and for this I apologise, despite the fact that no-one actualy reads it. I stopped because of my exams, and then just got out of the habit.

However, the present political state of affairs had rekindled my will to write, feeling, as I do, that ranting on the Internet is the closest thing I have to getting my voice heard. At least it makes me feel like I'm doing something. As I move on to University in the next few weeks, I hope to get more regular posts goig, and hopefully expand the team to include several others.

Hunting

As I write, the country is talking about little other than the new Bill to band hunting with dogs, as well as yesterday's invasion of the Commons by members of the pro-hunt lobby. Several issues are involved in recent events, and I shall try to move through them quickly.

First, the issue of whether or not fox-hunting ought to be banned. My answer is a definite no, principally becuase there is no good reason to make it illegal. The only argument worth considering is the one which claims that hunting is a cruel method of killing a fox. However, this argument is full of holes. The fatal blow is inflicted by the lead dog of the pack, which simply grabs the fox, shakes it, kills it. The 'tearing apart' of the fox takes place then, after it is dead, the lead dog having lost interest. Is the chase itself cruel? Maybe, but I cannot imagine a fox accepting an invitation to step into the back room of the local pub to be killed. Even then, what method would be more humane? Shooting could be very painful and leave a lingering death, snares and traps are often worse, and poisons put other wildife at risk.

The Government's own report (the Burns Report) came to a similar conclusion, typically fudging the issue of cruelty, but being very clear that a ban on hunting would have the main effect of obbing about 8000 people of their livelihoods. All this Bill will achieve is the destruction of another large part of the rural economy, all because TB needs to placate Old Labour and knows he can do this without affecting Labour votes: hunting is a rural, predominantly upper- and middle-class pursuit - how much more conservative-heartland would you like it?

This is a cheap pre-election bit of old-fashioned class hatred, gone about in an underhand way. The idea of using the Parliament Act is repugnant in the extreme. The Act should not be used as a redundancy notice for the Lords, particularly now that the House of Lords is composed of people that the Prime Minister has allowed to be there.

Sept. 11th and University

2004-05-01T17:24:00.000+01:00

Plenty of things to talk about at the moment, but I’ll just deal with a couple today:

September 11th

The current investigation into US security services’ actions before 9/11 can only go one way. It must exonerate them from wrongdoing, because it would take only the most precise intelligence to show them to have failed in their duty.

The attacks could not have been prevented. Warnings received would not have helped, because no terrorist wants their action to be foiled. Therefore information would have been vague. “We’re going to attack on September the 11th” doesn’t give a clue where or how; “We’re going to attack New York on September the 11th” doesn’t give a clue where in NY or how; “We’re going to attack the WTC on September the 11th” would have led to the assumption of a car bomb or hostage-taking attempt, itself difficult to combat. Only “We’re going to attack the WTC on September the 11th with planes” would have given them a chance, but even then, how would the US have gone about ensuring the whereabouts of every plane in the country and the safety of any flying over or to the US from outside?

So, without any useful advance warning to consider, the enquiry will be looking at intelligence-gathering. Unlike the Blair government, Al-Qaeda does not appear to leak like a sieve, so I am fully prepared to believe that any information gathered was sketchy at best. Even if they got a hint of what was planned, suddenly to close down sections of New York would have caused a panic. And anyway, if one prevents the attack taking place on September 11th, it would simply have happened on the 12th. The scapegoat for the 9/11 is not in the government, it is Al-Qaeda.

Universities

This week the BBC caught on to James Delingpole’s article of last week (can't find a link), in which he said that he was actively dissuading his step-son from going to university. Instead he is encouraging him to learn a trade. Himself an Oxford graduate, Delingpole believes that for someone like his step-son Jim (very practical and capable guy, but with poor exam results) to attend university on a mickey-mouse course would not do him any favours, as having a degree no longer means what it did.

Naturally, he has come under fire from people claiming that his attitude is shameful, not allowing Jim to enjoy the experiences of a university education, but Delingpole points out that universities are there to polish an academic élite, not to give everyone the opportunity to do drugs and laze around for 3 years (his sentiment, on Thursday’s Jeremy Vine show, R2).

Good on him. We must accept that having a degree is no longer an indication of academic prowess – its value lies now in the university by which it was given. Meanwhile, the country cries out for more good electricians, plumbers, joiners, cabinet-makers and the like, and there is no shame in being an excellent carpenter – I, for one, would respect a skilled craftsman more than someone with a PhD in Early Sanskrit. The government’s target of getting 50% through Higher Education is appalling and futile; however, more on the education system in a later post.

The Near and Middle East(s)

2004-04-27T21:17:00.000+01:00

Well, 52 diplomats have written to TB and made some farly un-diplomatic comments about the present policy on Iraq and relations with the US. Read the letter here.

One has to admit that they have some good points. There was obviously no real plan for post-war Iraqi government, but didn't we all know that when we started? I was broadly supportive of the war, but didn't seriously think they knew what they would do afterwards, though they should have.

I've said this before, but I'll say it here as well: the Iraq war was another in a long line of policies which epitomise New Labour. They want to do something, but haven't thought out the detail - the Dome, Lords reform, the War and more.

I'm sure No. 10 will try to say that these people don't know what they're talking about, but as senior diplomats, many of them having served in the Middle East, I'm prepared to think they have a good idea what they mean. Really, this is pretty damning for our man Tony.

Immigration

Also today we saw the announcement of a 'top to bottom' look at the immigration service, immediately before the EU officially admits the 10 new member nations. Only the eoconmically active migrants will get benefits and housing, etc. We are to be neither 'fortress' nor 'open door', apparently.

All very nice new rhetoric, but why did it need a scandal to get some common sense into proceedings? Of course only those who contribute should be entitled to state housing and benefits.

More later, when I have time and won't just rant.

The EU referendum

2004-04-20T17:15:00.000+01:00

TB has at last confirmed that he has changed his mind; we will be having a referendum on the EU Constitution. Question is, why has he changed his mind? It can't be because he doesn't want the Constitution - he loves Europe far too much - so it must be because he thinks he can win. This is not a good sign.

Also, he has said that Parliament will debate it before the people are consulted, which means the referendum will be after the next election. He has decided the battleground on which the elction will be fought. I imagine he will try to portray legitimate, sensible Conservative reservations on the issue to portray us as bigots and win the election and the referendum.

From the man with no reverse gear, of course...

Also, this issue begat a prime example of BBC bias. In this Have Your Say section 9 people were canvassed. Seven of them were in favour of the constitution. Now, you cannot expect me to believe that 77% of the population would vote Yes. All made possible by the unique way the BBC is funded.

Stand firm, noble protectors of Japan.

2004-04-17T14:14:00.000+01:00

Yesterday's footage of Japanese civilians celebrating in the offices of a Sunni cleric after their week-long ordeal brought to mind the complex nature of Japanese relations with the rest of the world. The frenzied calls for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and the insistence of Junichiro Koizumi that these troops would remain to complete their humanitarian work, demonstrated a deeper division in Japanese society over the use of military forces.

Since the Americans helped to craft the Japanese Constitution, and included a clause that prevented Japanese Self-Defence-Forces from being deployed abroad, the Japanese have found it very difficult, both politically and psychologically, to use their rather good armed forces outside Japan. Unlike Germany, where nearly 60 years of soul-searching and apologising have almost entirely erased the reluctance to use armed forces, Japan has undergone collective amnesia to a certain extent, and have not shown the same level of remorse for their actions in WW2 that the Germans have. In spite of this, they have formiddable armed forces, equipped with modern weaponry of largely American design, that could be used in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions to increase the stature of Japan both regionally and worldwide.

Much domestic opposition to troop deployments is not motivated by pacifistic tendencies, but simply national self-interest, and a reluctance to see Japanese troops coming home in body-bags. I heartily approve of Prime Minister Koizumi's position, and believe that Japan has every right to use their armed forces in the same manner that every other responsible major power does. The threat from North Korea is a superb example of the necessity for strong armed forces, and the purchase of PAC-3 Patriot missiles from America should be a priority for Japan's defence against nuclear-tipped missiles.

I agree with JR Brearley in his assertions regarding the Italians, and earnestly hope that no nation in the coalition backs down in the face of barbaric aggression, lest the despicable individuals who perpetrate these crimes be encouraged to commit more.

Iraq and the Italians

2004-04-16T18:40:00.000+01:00

TB and Dubya have just finished their joint press conference, in which GWB referred to the PM as 'a stand-up guy' and they both decided that they 'would not waver' on Iraq. Fair enough.

However, it is not the Coalition's attitude towards their task that catches my eye, but another Iraq story. Two days ago Fabrizio Quattrocchi became the first hostage taken by the Iraqi bandits affectionately known as the Ali Baba to be killed, with the event recorded on video and broadcast to the world. As he was about to be shot he attempted to remove the hood covering his head and said to his captors, "Now I shall show you how an Italian dies." I simply wish to salute this man because, although he died at the hands of idiots for no reason other than he was foreign, he died with honour.

This hostage-taking appears to be the latest thing in Iraq, but it is increasingly apparent that there is very little method behind it. Any foreigner these people find is instantly captured in order to make the demand that their nation's troops be withdrawn, but they are evidently clutching at straws. The Italian presence in Iraq is not large, and not many people would associate them with military operations, so one can only assume they captured him for being from a foreign land and worked out which later on. It is no reason for anyone to remove their troops, and I am glad to see that the Japanese and Italians have been swift to reject the bandits' proposals.

Oh, and the story emerged this morning that the CRB has been wrongly condemning prospective teachers if they have names similar to those of known criminals - more fuel to the fire started in my post from yesterday.

Bin Laden and the CRB

2004-04-15T22:37:00.000+01:00

Bin Laden makes TV comeback

So, today we get a message, courtesy of al-Jazeera again, from Osama bin Laden. He offers Europe, but not America, a truce on condition that they withdraw troops from 'our countries', i.e. Iraq. He also calls the events in Madrid a 'revenge attack'.

Should we back down at this chance? I say no, and I'm glad to see that Jack Straw says he will treat it 'with the contempt it deserves'. If anyone withdraws their troops now, it will be a straight victory for terrorism. al-Qaeda is so loosely organised, almost like a terrorism franchise - you and your mates apply to al-Qaeda for permission to operate in your area under their livery and trademark(s), they give you a bit of training and the odd set of instructions (a monthly corporate newsletter perhaps), and you get on with the job.

Even if the main men of al-Qaeda were to declare a ceasefire on a particular nation, I'm not sure we could trust the men on the ground to tow the line. The young and particularly zealous could even split off and form their own organisations - the Provisional al-Qaeda, perhaps? We must stand firm. Whether we ought to be there at all is a matter for a different day.

The CRB

This story caught my eye today, slipping quietly under the radar as bin Laden takes the lime-light. What it says is that Capita, the private company given the contact to vett people working with children, has overspent by £150 million. They won the contract by tendering the lowest bid, £250 million, to deal with three million applications over the next ten years.

And this is precisely the problem: all one has to do is bid the least to win a government contract, safe in the knowledge that any overspend will be picked up by the taxpayer. In fact, it's as neat a setup for fraud as one could find. One could easily add a few million to the accounts and pocket it when the government pays up. No-one is going to say 'well, we're not giving you any more money', because the company can just stop work, and that would be terrible PR for the Government.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers originally tendered the highest amount at £380 million, but now the lowest bidder has spent more than that. What can we do? Perhaps the money should be given to the company up-front, and any extra needed should be loaned, to be paid back with interest. Would that not work?

European Defence

2004-04-14T17:40:00.000+01:00

Britain is currently semi-dependent on the United States for the acquisition of military technology. Though it is true that many of our scientists are working with the Americans, and the Americans are sharing a great deal of their technology with us, how much of their technology they choose to share is entirely up to them. Britain is not automatically included by the Americans, and we have been forced to develop our own stand-off attack missiles with the French, our own rifles with German assistance, and are set to purchase anti-tank missiles from the Swedes.

Current moves towards a pan-EU military development service are slowly taking place, which raises the issue of a common European defence policy. Certainly, recent events suggest that Europe is deeply divided on foreign and defence policy, and so a common policy seems extremely unlikely to emerge anytime soon. In addition, the reduction in national sovereignty it entails is sufficient to discourage many countries, not least the United Kingdom, for some time to come. However, since new military technology is very expensive to develop, and no European nation spends enough on it's own to develop all the technology it requires, it makes sense to pool resources on this issue.

I propose that all EU nations increase military expenditure, and move towards a unification of military research and development facilities. Such moves in the past have proven fruitful - the Eurofighter, Eurocopter, Storm Shadow, Tornado and soon the A400M have all been the result of intra-European co-operation. It would be naieve, however, to suppose that these projects were without their problems. The Eurofighter is a full 10 years behind schedule, and was designed to fight the Cold War. However, it it nonetheless a very advanced multi-role combat aircraft, surpassed perhaps only by the American F/22 Raptor, which is much more expensive to build.

Although there are a great many obstacles to be overcome, and whilst it would be preferable for Britain to be able to develop technologies entirely independently, this is no longer an option, and in my opinion, intra-European military development offers the best way forward.

Constitutional Reform?

2004-04-14T16:34:00.000+01:00

The Lords

Yesterday in The Daily Telegraph, I read that TB and his mates would like to reduce the Lords' powers to delay legislation from the present 1 year to simply a matter of months. The editorial delivered an excellent assessment of the situation as a follow-up - read it here.

Why must this Government behave like spoilt children every time things do not go their way? I am sure that they are changing the Upper House's power purely because they have not managed to change its constitution.

This whole process of constitutional reform has been undertaken fo the sake of it, so that Tony will go down in the History books as the PM who reformed the Lords. Unfortunately, this is likely to go as a post-script to the main encyclopaedia entry noting that he was one of the most powerful and appalling Prime Ministers we have ever known. The problem is that he wants to change something, but doesn't know how or why. Now we end up with a crippled second chamber, and every time it dares to challenge Blair he invokes the Parliament Act or looks to abolish it. After all, he put most of the present Lords there, so it's just ungrateful not to let all his Bills through, no matter how ill-conceived they might be.

Is it entirely unreasonable for me to think that, until we knew what to do with the Lords, it should have been left alone? I think not. Someone must point out the difference between change and reform - just as they should ask why government expenditure is now called investment.

The Franchise

In the coming week the Electoral Commission looks likely to recommend that the franchise be extended to anyone over the age of 16 rather than the present 18. This is absolutely preposterous. I refer readers to the excellent post by Peter Cuthbertson on Conservative Commentary last Friday, and also to Chris Cowley's excellent PDF file assessing the arguments.

I cannot see how anyone would seriously think that children of 16 are, on average, well-enough informed to be allowed the Vote. Of course, the majority of the present electorate isn't either, but there we are. Perhaps the real reason for this idea is as I explained in a follow up to the Conservative Commentary post:

Lowering the voting age to 16 wil add approximately 1.5 million voters to the electoral rolls;

Polling indicates that, of these, 60% would be inclined to vote Labour, 18% Conservative, and 15% lib Dem, and a 40% turnout expected. (Source: Channel 4)

A potential 900,000 extra Labour votes - quite an incentive, I think you'll agree.

The Beginning

2004-04-14T14:17:00.000+01:00

Please allow me to introduce myself: I am a man of wealth and taste, residing in the glorious country of England.

I have set up this blog in order that I have somewhere to air my views on UK politics and things in general. Though I may not post everyday I shall try to do so, and hope that you find here something to provoke thought (or anger!)

Forgive if the look changes a little, I'm just working out how the whole thing operates.

Epimenides