Saturday 2 July 2011

That's democracy? - by Richard... Saturday, July 02, 2011


After a heated five hour debate, the final decision on the future of the tram project, to pursue a line to St Andew Square, was made on the basis of just sixteen Lib-Dim votes - a party which picked up just 627 votes in the Inverclyde by-election, with the candidate losing his deposit.

Furthermore, the "debate" was conducted without final details of a contract settlement being publicly known. With interest, the local authority will end up shelling a total of £420 million more of taxpayers' money, if it opts to repay the amount at £14 million a year over 30 years.

This brings the total cost of the new truncated scheme to a least £920 million (the details are very hazy about interest payments on the core £500 million). The 8.5 mile airport-St Andrew Square section of the line will this come in a £1,700 an inch. At least this is slightly less than the M74 extension, although cost per traveller mile is probably greater.

The point, though, is that there are many such examples in Westminster, and at local authority level - where elected and appointed officials are totally out of control. The idea that democracy can be conferred simply by graciously allowing the people to elect (some of) their rulers must be one of the biggest frauds in the history of mankind.

By no stretch of the imagination can our system be regarded as government for the people, by the people. The very idea is absurd, yet there are many people (mainly politicians) who will tell you, with a straight face, that this is a democracy. It isn't. How can it be, when there is no mechanism for control?


This is their idea of democracy (above) ... using the fig-leaf of elected office to by-pass the will of the people, and impose more costs on them that none, individually, would approve. We must start with controlling the money ... and move on from there. The only democracy is direct democracy. The rest is a sham. To believe otherwise is delusional.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

The tramlines of Referism - by Richard... Friday, July 01, 2011


As the saga of the Edinburgh tramway continues, we now hear that councillors have decided on what they consider to be the least worst option – throwing more money at the project, rather than cancelling it.

Considering that cancellation will have cost taxpayers £750 million, the councillors seem to have come up with a completely new set of figures which allow them to claim that another, new, washes-whiter truncated scheme would only cost £774 million, and make an operating profit of £2 million a year. Whether that includes servicing the debt is not specified.

With a scheme that was supposed to cost no more than £500 million when it was approved, and is now running three years behind schedule, the public could be forgiven for taking a rather jaundiced view of the judgement of their civic leaders, the council being run by the Lib-Dims, who share power with the Scots Nats.

Breaking ranks, though, is the SNP's deputy city council leader Steve Cardownie. He opposes the scheme and has proposed a referendum, to allow the public to make the decision on the future of the tramway, rather than proven inadequate who run the council.

Needless to say, the idea has been rejected by the ruling élites. Cardownie says he was "obviously disappointed" by the decision, adding: "All options had a price tag but we maintained that the Edinburgh public should determine which one they preferred".

In a crucial statement, he then says: "We think it's inherently undemocratic not to give the Edinburgh people a voice in this matter. It's their money which is going to bridge the funding gap and it should have been up to them to decide".
And therein lie the tramlines of Referism. Cardownie is very clearly acknowledging that theconfidence trick of allowing the public to elect their rulers – from a very limited gene pool – is not sufficient to confer democracy. What really matters is the power to control how the money is spent.

Control over the money is always at the root of power, which is why the EU is currently seeking ways of raising taxes independently of the member states. It is also why, if we are ever to have a functioning democracy, we the people must have a formalised right to decide on how much money is raised, and how it is spent.

However, referendums on individual budget items would be expensive and complex, but an annual referendum on the global budget is a good alternative, and a change that would be easily implemented – the general idea of an annual referendum having already been piloted successfully in respect of Council Tax. That is Referism ... an idea whose time has come.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Unreality - by Richard...


You can feel there is something wrong ... it is in the air. This is not the calm before the storm, not the calm before anything. Just flat, like the world stopped and everyone is frozen in a tableau of immobility. Crazy? Dunno. Just something odd is going on, and I can't put a finger on it.

Certainly, if the world (or our bit of it) hasn't stopped, it has slowed down. The grown-up bit of theFailygraph is telling us that the manufacturing sector expanded at its slowest pace in almost two years last month. Factories have reduced hiring and new orders fell, "reinforcing concerns about the health of the broader economic recovery".

And it isn't just us. China's factory sector grew at its slowest pace in 28 months in June as new orders expanded less quickly. Weaker global demand and tight monetary policy at home is - we are told - pinching production.

But we are not just talking about material things. Sanity is taking a break as well. Via Calling England, we have George Eustice MP telling us in the Guardian content partner that "We now have a genuinely eurosceptic Prime Minister who is better placed to deliver than any of his predecessors, including Thatcher".

Eustice, one might recall, stood unsuccessfully as a candidate for UKIP in the South West of England during the 1999 Euro Elections, going on to work as campaign director for the anti-euro "No Campaign".

He became head of press under Howard during the 2005 General and was then press secretary for "Call me Dave" from June 2005 until the end of 2008. Taking part in Dave's successful anointment to the leadership of the former Conservative Party, he has been rewarded with a nice safe seat at the Tory pig trough.

Having qualified for an early lobotomy, his conversion to a full-time moron is now complete, yet his words, instead of being greeted with snorts of derision, actually get house room in what has become the fantasy world of British politics, where normal life has been suspended.

But it's not even – or only – that which makes you wonder whether you are on the right planet. For sure, the latest dose of corporate greed doesn't help, when you see five directors of the publicly owned Scottish Water sharing in a one-off bonus pay-out of more than £450,000 for "meeting performance targets".

Chief executive Richard Ackroyd was handed £78,900 as part of the deal, meaning he took home £420,000 in total last year. Finance chief Douglas Millican and "asset management director" Geoff Aitkenhead both got bonuses of £103,000 to top up their total pay of £230,000.

Yet a spokeswoman for Scottish Water insists that the business is "unique" and that the salaries were below those of directors at water firms south of the Border. So that's alright then?

This is almost as mad and bad as the news that Northumbrian Water is subject to a takeover offer, worth up to £2.6 billion, from the Chinese group Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings, owned by Li Ka-shing, Hong Kong's richest man.


To an already surreal situation, we add the EU. With even the Irish Times recording that the proposed multiannual framework rise is "a step too far", and the Daily Mail complaining of a "deluded Brussels", the BBC chips in with a happy little piece, telling us all how Brussels is going to cut its costs.

Needless to say, the "colleagues" think the rise is wonderful. Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister, described the commission's proposals as "ambitious, coherent and radical", adding, "I am pleased the commission has shown the courage to do this".

Courage? Is this a new name for suicide? And if it is, what does one make of Barroso, who says: "This is an extremely serious, credible proposal", yesterday dismissing the immediate barrage of condemnation, by airily declaring: "to say 'no' to something which was only adopted two or three hours ago is not serious or credible". Could we get Li Ka-shing to buy the EU?

Such is the mood, though, that when we see the headline "Greece aid 'likely released after EU talks Saturday'", one immediately thinks that its 96-hour bail period must have expired - which is why, presumably, Theresa May wants emergency legislation.

We are even losing our grip on the weather is not climate front, with the Met Office deciding that weather is climate, after all, when it suits its book. "It has been impossible to say these events were part of a bigger picture – until now", says Steve Connor in The Independent. No mention of the record snow pack though.


Thus are the warmists completely unaffected by the news that some of Britain's most beautiful landscapes are blighted by wind farms that will not generate enough electricity for the future.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has released figures which show a six percent drop in the amount of electricity produced by Britain's onshore wind farms. The department blames a drop in wind, revealing that 2010 was the calmest year this century, with onshore wind producing only 1.9 percent of all electricity in 2010, compared with two percent the year before - despite an expenditure of £5 billion.

Perhaps it is this feeling of going backwards which has Dutch junior foreign affairs minister Ben Knapen worrying that the "visible mess" surrounding voting in the European song festival has "reduced support for the European alliance". So there you are, it wasn't Greece and the euro, after all.

But none of this, and much, much more, actually explains the feeling. Something is up. Everything might look normal but, like Ed Miliband, but it isn't. A great cloud of invisible unreality has descended ... and who knows now what will happen. But, just maybe, Subrosa has stumbled on the cause of the problem.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Churnalism almost wins out - by Richard...


From the press coverage of the Snatch Land Rover litigation, on which a judgement in the High Court was handed down yesterday, you would think that the case against the MoD had been lost. It hasn't. The campaigners trying to bring the Ministry of Defence to book, for knowingly fielding dangerously vulnerable equipment in Iraq, have won a qualified victory.

The impression that the case was lost comes from the misleading headline on the BBC report (above), but this owes its origin to a similarly misleading report from the Press Association, which completely misrepresents the situation.

The essence of the flawed report, which has been replicated hundreds of times in local and national media, is that "a High Court judge has blocked attempts by families of four soldiers killed in Iraq to seek compensation from the Government".

The soldiers concerned were Pte Phillip Hewett, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, Pte Lee Ellis, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, and Lance Cpl Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, Essex, all of whom were killed in Snatch Land Rovers, and Corporal Stephen Allbutt, 35, who was killed by "friendly fire" after his Challenger was hit by another.

Relatives, we are told, said the MoD failed to provide armoured vehicles or equipment which could have saved lives and should pay compensation. MoD lawyers, on the other hand, "said decisions about battlefield equipment are for politicians and military commanders and asked the High Court to stop compensation claims going forward". Then, says the report, "Mr Justice Owen ruled in favour of the MoD".

However, to project – by juxtaposition – that the judge accepted this particular MoD argument is simply false. As a spokeswoman for relatives' lawyers made clear, this was the MoD relying on the principle of "combat immunity", which removes any liability for exercising a "duty of care" in combat zones.

Here, the judge broke new ground. He refused to accept the principle, allowing Courtney, aged 10, daughter of Pte Lee Ellis, to proceed with a case of negligence. Similarly, the Challenger "friendly fire" case has been allowed through.

Where the Press Association had got itself confused is that there were two separate legs to the case. The first was the group of relatives, including Sue Smith, mother of Pte Hewett, who were not dependents, collectively seeking to make the MoD "... accountable for allowing their loved ones to go into combat in vehicles that were manifestly unsuitable for the job".

Because they were not dependents, they have no claim under common law and cannot seek damages for negligence under duty of care provisions. Before anyone can pursue a claim, the law requires them to prove they have suffered financial loss, which the relatives cannot or will not do.

Thus, this group of relatives have instead proceeded under Human Rights legislation (ECHR) and, since even that requires compensation to be claimed, the cases have been lodged in terms of the relatives seeking damages. However, as the entire group have constantly pointed out - articulated by Sue Smith - they are not interested in the money. This, in any case, is likely to be minimal, and soaked up by legal fees and repayment of legal aid. The relatives simply want the MoD brought to book.

Now, it is the ECHR leg of the case that has been blocked - on the grounds that the deceased soldiers were outside the jurisdiction of the UK at the time of their deaths because they were not in the UK nor on a British Army base. Therefore, it is held, the ECHR does not apply.

That the ECHR case would be rejected was actually an expected development, especially after theJason Smith case. When I spoke to Sue Smith after the judgement, she was not at all dismayed. There are other, different cases being heard which may settle this point – or these cases themselves may end up in Strasbourg.


But on the negligence issue, ground really has been broken. And, for once, the loss-makingGuardian has got it right, a distinction shared by the Belfast Telegraph. Both note that, relying on the principle of "combat immunity", the ministry had argued that this was a complete legal defence for incidents that took place in war zones.

The judge, says the papers, disagreed. In The Guardian, he is cited as saying: "There can be no doubt that the [MoD] is under a general duty to provide adequate training, suitable equipment and a safe system of work for members of the armed forces". Thus Courtney's claim, plus claims by Cpl Allbutt's widow, Debi, and Dan Twiddy and Andy Julien – two soldiers injured in the Challenger - could continue.

Before all the misleading publicity, a ministry spokesman had declared that: "The courts have upheld our arguments on Article 2 of the ECHR. We will be seeking leave to appeal against the decision about liability claims for equipment provision".

Latterly, Sky News got the news mostly right – but still with a misleading headline. The Mirrorbecame a late entrant, correcting its earlier story - as did the Mail, while The Sun continues to get it wrong. Interestingly, the Failygraph does not carry a report at all.

Nevertheless, the manoeuvring continues. Those who lost their lives in Snatch Land Rovers – as well as the Challenger set - are one step closer to getting their day in court. Unfortunately, due to the bulk of the media and its churnalism, most people will never realise what has happened.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Life copies art - by Richard... Thursday, June 30, 2011


... as yesterday's satire becomes today's news.

Moutie Abrahams, 42, who flew in on a packed BA flight from Cape Town, said: "We came here two months ago and we stood in queues for a really long time. Today it was much quicker. "In South Africa our strikes are more efficient. You would still be standing there."

The airfield was operating normally, with nine out of 10 flights arriving and departing on time.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Another charade - by Richard...


"The notion of Cameron being a strategic genius who will throw off his cloak of Europhilia and reveal his inner democratic nationalist is laughable given the catalogue of pro EU actions to date. So it seems the ignorance is all pervasive and the effort to make us buy into it is being reinforced at every opportunity. The gullible constituency where this idea is being swallowed is obvious to all who look – the British media".

That is quality writing from Autonomous Mind, commenting on the latest report in The Daily Mailwhich parades the EU's so-called "power grab", the one that even seems to have the loss-makingGuardian slightly troubled.

The Mail has "David Cameron" facing pressure to veto the latest "ludicrous" cash demand from Brussels after it announced plans to slap three new taxes on Britain, after the EU Commission – so we are told - "revealed budget demands which would cost UK taxpayers £10 billion".

However, we are not talking about the "budget" here, even if a commission official triumphantly parades it as "a trillion euro budget". It is in fact the EU's Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014 – 2020, the manoeuvring for which got underway yesterday when Barroso slime announced the commission proposals at a press conference, telling us that "the European Union works everyday to help realise the aspirations of our 500 million
people".

The hubris of these people knows no end, but you would not get any sense of this from the Mail, which now no longer attempts to educate its readers. Instead, like the parochial British media always does, it pins a Union Jack on its report, and couches it in domestic terms, the ultimate insult to its readers, whom it believes are not interested in EU stories unless there is a direct British dimension.


This is a charade that is going to run and run but, in the end, Cameron will do a deal. He has faithin the EU and will, therefore, deliver another sell-out. So the wheel will go round and round. It is not going to stop until we decide to stop it.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Britannia Radio at 12:28