« January 2005 | Main | March 2005 »
February 24, 2005
End of an era
Last night's vote in Parliament on new anti-terrorism legislation saw an almost inexorable step taken towards the end of an era that opened with the signing of Magna Carta in 1215. That document enshrined the principle thatIn future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
For 790 years, through numerous wars and periods of civil unrest the principles of Magna Carta have endured. Until last night when, with indecent haste, the Government decided that it was more appropriate that the Home Secretary stand in judgement. Now the danger with all such measures is that regardless of whether or not they are well intentioned, once they are on the statute, they will eventually be misused or abused.
So ask yourself, why does the government feel the need to introduce such measures? According to Tony Blair, there is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack. Well I'm sorry but he is asking use to swap the tyranny of fear for the tyranny of oppresive government, if not now then in the future.
And what a corrupting influence power is. Back in 1994, the Labour Shadow Home Secretary stated that The liberty of the subject should be taken away not by the act of a politician, but by a court of law. The name of this clearing thinking individual? Tony Blair.
The battle is not yey over. Although the Government carried last night's vote, there are further opportunities to derail it. And in the meantime, if your local MP was one of those who voted against the bill, please take the time to thank them. Especially if they were one of the 32 Labour MPs who rebelled against the Government.
--------
Posted by Clive at 3:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 16, 2005
Poacher turned Gamekeeper
One of the more impressive things about New Labour is how some of its most ardent supporters would once have vehemently opposed policies they are now implementing. And in some respects there can be no better example than Paymaster General Dawn Primarolo.Red Dawn was opposed to the 1991 Gulf War, yet voted the Government line on divisions 117 and 118 giving approval for British involvement in Iraq. Let's make that clear, the same person who was opposed to British involvement in the liberation of Kuwait was, just over 10 years later, in favour of invading Iraq on the basis of dubious intelligence. An invasion the legality of which came down to the opinion of Tony Blair.
And then there's her position on taxation. Dawn was a prominent Poll Tax protestor, one of many who refused to pay and risked jail. All credit to her for opposing an inequitable form of taxation. Yet as Paymaster General she has presided over some of the most draconian taxation legislation in centuries. You may think that's an exaggeration, but consider the latest proposal to come out of the Inland Revenue. In order to stamp out tax avoidance, the Inland Revenue is aiming to retrospectively tax workers based on how it views the situation at a future point in time. So, for example, being a good citizen and aware of the pensions crisis, you have annual bonuses paid into a pension scheme. These payments attract lower levels of tax and NICs. Three years later the Inland Revenue, without recourse to Parliament, decides that such a scheme is now considered tax avoidance. Without warning you're suddenly faced with an unexpected tax bill. Not only that, but a bill covering a period when the way you'd organised your affairs was considered acceptable. The IR's justification for this?
A Revenue spokesman said piecemeal attempts to tackle tax and Nics avoidance "have been met with ever more complex and contrived schemes".
No mention there of role Gordon Brown's over-complication of the taxation system has played in this at all. Curious how the IR forgets to mention that, taking a single example, Brown's decision to introduce a 10K corporation tax threshold, ignoring the advice of tax specialists and accountants, resulted in tens of thousands of business incorporating to benefit. Then rather than admit he'd got it wrong he instead introduces a dividend tax.
Fascinating isn't it, how New Labour has so thoroughly corrupted the principles of MPs we would once have considered true Labour. From opposing war in Iraq to supporting it; from opposing unfair taxes to introducing more draconian forms of taxation; from opposing private investment in public services to total commitment to PFI; from supporting the rights of the people to the suspension of Habeas Corpus; from upholding the rights of Parliament to handing their powers to unaccountable mandarins in the Civil Service.
On issue after issue we see too many Labour MPs who appear to have sold, if not their souls then at least their principles in exchange for what? Nothing of lasting value. Were their principles really so weakly held, or the power of government so corrupting? Just think about that over the next couple of months.
--------
Posted by Clive at 12:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 14, 2005
Backing Blair - An Update
As many may have noticed, Backing Blair has been down for about 2hrs now, courtesy of an - as yet - unknown complainant. Now I'll let you draw you own conclusions as to the source of the complaint, but in the meantime, we working on arranging multiple mirror sites.I'll keep you posted.
Update - Provider confirms Backing Blair should be up by 20:30
--------
Posted by Clive at 3:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 11, 2005
(Belated) Happy Birthday
Hmm, was so busy working with manic and wibbler putting Backing Blair together that I complete missed the fact that The UK Today was one year old last Sunday.Been a funny old year. Originally intended to use the blog to sound off about things that got right up my nose or just found amusing. Opened with an attack on David (The Kid is Mine) Blunkett's proposed Diplock Mk2 anti-terror courts, but soon found that Blair and his acolytes left me seething so much that most of my spleen was vented in that direction, and the more amusing aspects of the UK today were either overlooked or left by the wayside.
So a year later and there are a number of issues that still need following up, but I'm taking things one battle at a time.
Anyway, Happy Birthday to this blog. Let's see if its second year will bring more than the 596 posts of the previous 12 months.
Mine's a 14 yr Scapa.
Cheers/Slainte/Iechyd da!
--------
Posted by Clive at 4:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 10, 2005
Backing Blair - Meeting tonight
If you're in the Sheffield/Barnsley area and what to know about/discuss Backing Blair, there's a meeting in the bar at Tankersley Manor Hotel, at 8pm tonight. --------Posted by Clive at 3:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Backing Blair
You've heard mention of Backing Blair both here and at Bloggerheads. Some of you have challenged us, accusing us of suddenly switching sides and supporting Blair. Well, Backing Blair has gone live, so get your asses over there and see exactly what we're about...Right, hopefully you've read, digested and cogitated.
Now this is what we want you to do.
First:
Spread. the. word. Link to the site. There's a set of link resources you can use including a variety of buttons. If you've got a web presence, use it to support Backing Blair.
Second:
In the words of the great Bob Geldoff, give us your fucking money. If we're going to get Blair, we're going to need money, a whole lot of money for advertising campaigns in the press, on the streets and on TV. Doesn't matter how much or how little you give, it will all get spent on tangibles. None of the supporters are seeing a penny from this, in fact the opposite as we've been pouring our own money into Backing Blair. And we've made donating easy. Just go here and click to donate.
Third:
Get involved. Put up posters, set up a local campaign group, get people involved in your area. The web is a tool, but for this campaign to succeed, we need people to get out on the streets and get active. We'll do all we can to support you, but this is your campaign as much as it is ours.
This is your opportunity to go out there and make a difference. And it'll be fun. There'll be t-shirts, stickers, buttons and other goodies available soon. The first campaign video is online with more to follow.
We've already made a start by asking the Electoral Commission to look at 92 candidates websites which, in contravention of a 2001 recommendation, contain MP in the domain name. The list includes such luminaries as Michael Howard and Charles Clarke.
And the kick-off was an email to Tony Blair, calling him out and challenging him to face the public and let them choose the issues.
So, this is where it starts. Let's get busy and work to get the result we all want at the end of election day.
Update - 10:35
Launch announcement at Bloggerheads
--------
Posted by Clive at 9:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 8, 2005
Democracy
Voter apathy appears to be at an all time high, and that should be a major concern to anyone concerned about the health of our democracy, especially in the run-up to a general election. One of the major reasons is that the first-past-the-post system means that unless you're living in a marginal constituency, then your voting preferences will have very little effect. Another is the feeling that regardless of how you vote, very little really changes, a feeling exacerbated by the lack of clear water between the policies of New Labour and the Conservatives. Or, as Ken Livingstone put it in the title of his 1987 book, If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Abolish It.Now there is very little that can be done about the lack of choice with regards to policies. Note the use of very little because, as hopefully will be shown soon, it is possible for all of us to exert an influence, albeit in a slow and possibly unwieldy manner. And there is an argument that policies would follow public desire, but that relies on senior politicians feeling accountable to the electorate (stop laughing at the back) rather than businesses and other power groups with vested interests.
Efforts have been made with the other issue, that of opposition votes in non-marginals having no effect. One such group is behind http://www.tacticalvoter.net/ which successfully managed tactical vote swapping in the 2001 General Election, resulting in a Labour victory in Dorset South and a LibDem win in Cheadle. Now while such achievements are laudable, tactical vote swapping should, if it is to be organised by a third party, be run on a non-partisan basis. Which is where www.tacticalvoter.net fails, as their sole objective appears to be the ousting of as many Conservatives candidates as possible.
Now swapping the LibDems for the Conservatives as the major opposition party isn't in itself going to bring about significant change. The real objective must be to bring the distribution of MPs closer in line with the desires of the electorate as a whole, and that requires proportional representation. As yet, only the LibDems actively support PR in Westminster, and that is a situation that is unlikely to change until the other major parties are made to realise that their only chance of Government is through a change in the election process.
So we need to tie all these threads together, showing politicians the price of not being accountable to the electorate and that a first-past-the-post system can well and truly stuff their chances of government. Which is where, hopefully, Backing Blair will come in. More details will be announced this week, but Backing Blair is a subversive attempt to undermine Tony Blair by removing as much of his Blairite support as possible, whilst demonstrating to the Conservatives the power of PR through judicious use of tactical voting (but don't worry, this isn't a pro-Tory campaign any more than it is a pro-Blair campaign).
At the moment Backing Blair exists purely as a result of spit, sweat, late nights, and the understanding and forgiving nature of the participant's better halves. For now. So what we need is your assistance. If you can, get yourself to one of the two kickoff meetings being held this week in London and Barnsley. If you don't live near either of these places, then contact team AT backingblair DOT co DOT uk and we'll give you all the support and resources we can to help you organise a campaign in your area.
We have an opportunity to reclaim our franchise, let's not waste it.
--------
Posted by Clive at 1:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 4, 2005
Manifesto Problems
From this report in the Guardian, it looks like Labour's leadership is going to have an interesting ride as it finalises the Party Manifesto for the next election. As Robin Cook points out...[If the party put forward an] unremittingly New Labour [manifesto it would neglect the fact that] the whole point of winning an election is to create a fair, open society that reflects our decent, humanitarian values.
To which the only reply is Amen Brother!
The Party Leadership is going to try and portray this election as a choice between Labour or Conservative visions of the future. But their election slogan Forward, not back hints at the real battle, between Blairite New Labour and the more traditional values that Labour used to represent.
And that's what you need to decide come polling day. Do you want the Blairite vision of the future, or a more traditional vision of a society that does more than just pay lip service to social values? Forget the scaremongering, the Conservatives are not going to win the next election as even they would admit. So a vote against a Blairite MP in a marginal constituency isn't going to hand the country to the Tories. But it might just save it from the Blairites.
--------
Posted by Clive at 1:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Labour Dilemma
One challenge facing Labour is how to encourage ant-war voters to grant the Party a third term in government, and at the same time get the leadership to define and execute an exit-strategy. This article in today's Guardian makes for interesting reading. It will be interesting to see if candidates in Labour marginals start to play the anti-war card in an effort to win votes. A useful question to ask of Labour candidates up for re-election to take this stand is "If you're so opposed to the war in Iraq, why didn't you support the impeachment of Tony Blair?". You might also want to check their voting record at http://www.theyworkforyou.com or http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/.Blair may not want Iraq to be an election issue, but it will prove unavoidable. And with the return of spinmeister Alastair Campbell, you can guarantee that the truth won't trouble the leadership. Which leaves it up to the grass roots party members to try and keep the campaign honest.
--------
Posted by Clive at 1:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The War in Iraqn
That fragrant flower of American diplomacy, Condoleezza Rice, has been having talks in London with Tony Blair and Jack Straw. Now in light of her more recent statements, you might expect Ms Rice to be drumming up support for military intervention in Iran, but according to the subsequent press conference that isn't quite the case. When challenged on the matter, Rice responded that The question is simply not on the agenda at this point in time. Now maybe that was supposed to be a reassuring statement, but given the number of American troops tied up in Iraq and the size of the US Budget deficit, I suspect the real reason for not moving against Iran now has more to do with circumstances than policy.
Now Blair is currently supporting EU moves to try and bring about a diplomatic solution to Tehran's push for nuclear weapons. All very laudable, but we've been here before and when the chips were down, Tone was more than happy to commit British forces in support of American foreign policy.
Meanwhile you have ask yourself whether the invasion of Iraq hasn't been a contributory factor to the acceleration of Iran's weapons program. After all, North Korea has long been seen as a bigger threat than Iraq, but possesses nuclear weapons, and this can't have escaped Tehran's attention. Of all the countries on Rice's list (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma and Belarus) only North Korea has nuclear weapons (Belarus did, but as the Federation of American Scientists reports, she became a non-nuclear state in November 1996. And apart from Iran, none of the others have anything resembling a weapons program. As far as the Mullahs are concerned, having nuclear weapons may very well be the only way of dissuading the US from military involvement.
At the end of the day, we've been here before. Once America decides on its target, Britain tends to follow, regardless of how weak the justification for action is. It might well be that the only way of preventing British involvement in future escapades is for Parliament to act with more rigour. And that requires one or more of the following:
- a reduced Labour majority after the next election.
- Tony Blair losing his seat.
- More Labour backbenchers remembering just what the Labour Party used to stand for.
Only time will tell, but I'm not optimistic of a peaceful outcome.
--------
Posted by Clive at 11:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 3, 2005
Backing Blair - South Yorkshire Meetup
####### VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE #######There is a planning/kick-off meeting for any Bloggerheads or UK Today readers in the South Yorkshire area who want to know what the deal is with Backing Blair. It is being held next Thursday at 8:00pm. The venue will be either Barnsley, Sheffield or somewhere convenient between the two.
If you're interested in getting involved, register here
If you're in the London area, manic has a meeting organised, details available here
--------
Posted by Clive at 1:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Veritas
First there was Veritas the software company, founded in 1989.Then we were given Veritas: The Quest, a cheesy Tomb Raider clone TV series.
Now we're faced with Veritas, the new UK political party and haven for egotistical and perma-tanned ex-TV show host, Robert Kilroy-Silk.
Now Europhobia raises some interesting points regarding Veritas (TC - the company) suing Veritas (TP - the party) for copyright infringement. Now while I doubt Veritas(TC) would have much of a case, given that they both operate in completely different arenas, things might look a lot different if the loons get much more publicity.
For example, one wonders just what Veritas(TC) thinks of having its logo associated with the Nazis, as this conspiracy theorist (link courtesy of manic) has done. The logic would seem to run something like this: "Veritas(TP) is right-wing in attitudes, and shares its name with Veritas(TC). Veritas(TC) has a clear philanthropic policy. Veritas(TC) hasn't sued Veritas(TP), and Veritas(TP) needs funding, therefore Veritas(TC) approves and may well be actively supporting Veritas(TP). And for added proof, look closer at Veritas(TC)'s logo. Not only does it share a font with Veritas(TP), but Veritas(TC)'s logo also contains artwork reminiscent of Nazi military insignia."
Now you may think that's stretching things more than just a little bit too far. After all, the the symbol in the Veritas(TC) logo looks more like an upturned pyramid, so perhaps they have connections with the Illuminatae. But the bottom line for Veritas(TC) is whether they can afford to let these sort of rumours spread without acting against Veritas(TP). If you get the hint (nudge nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean).
Now we've got the tinfoil hat stuff out of the way, a quick glance at Veritas(TP)'s manifesto extract shows them to be the typical tax cutting, crime fixated, anti-foreigner outfit that seems to somehow maintain a fragile existence on the right of British politics. In spite of their lack of individual stature, what concerns me is the effect that an unholy alliance of these right-wing parties could have in some areas.
There are challenges facing this country, but Veritas offers neither truth nor answers.
Update:
Honourable Fiend - anyone want to help Veritas do the web thing properly?
The Telegraph - Your view: Do you trust Veritas
Kilroy Veritas - bombs away...
--------
Posted by Clive at 9:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 1, 2005
Election
With the announcement of the General Election drawing ever closer, we can expect the trickle of allegedly vote-winning policies to become a flood. However, Tony Blair had better try and improve his memory. Today he announced plans to reform Incapacity Benefit, claiming that more than 1 million people currently on benefit would rather be working. But we've been here before. Way back in the early days ofAnd believe me, reform is needed, though not the near-privatisation proposed by the Conservatives.
--------
Posted by Clive at 5:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack