US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the US must take part of the blame for drug-related violence in Mexico. Speaking as she arrived in Mexico, she said the US's appetite for drugs and its inability to stop arms crossing the border were helping fuel the violence
Her two-day visit comes a day after the Obama administration announced new measures to boost border security.Of course, when you have a system of prohibition that has continuously failed to work, the most obvious thing to try is more of the same.
"Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.
Mrs Clinton said the Obama administration, working with the US Congress, intended to pledge $80m (£55m) to help Mexico buy Blackhawk helicopters.
She also acknowledged that US efforts to ban drugs had so far been unsuccessful in stopping the narcotics trade.
Another factor contributing to increased health consequences
of marijuana use is the increase in potency over the past several
years.
—The White House Drug Abuse Policy Office, 1984 National
Strategy for Prevention of Drug Abuse and Drug Trafficking
Legalisation of all narcotic substances for adult consumption. The well respected Transform Drug Policy Foundation has a wealth of information explaining how this approach is the only one that will effectively address the problems that illegal drug use currently cause individuals and the wider nation.The Transform Foundation have produced this document outlining why and how prohibition has failed, and how a sensible policy of legalization can benefit everyone.
The UK government was forced to rule out letting failed bank Northern Rock wind down because poor IT systems would have left depositors waiting for their money, risking another major run.The revelation comes in a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) on the government's handling of the failed bank, which was nationalised in February 2008.
The report says that in September 2007 the Treasury considered stopping Northern Rock from taking deposits and writing new mortgages and beginning a process of winding down the company.
However "inadequate IT systems at Northern Rock meant that depositors would have had to wait for their money".
The firm operated a manual account closure process and estimated that it would have taken up to 10 to 12 weeks to repay depositors, with a likely error rate of 25%.
This would have risked another major run and potential hardship for those reliant on access to their funds, says the report, forcing the government to rule out an immediate wind-down on "practical grounds".
The report says work on updating the technology was then begun to enable quicker repayment of depositors if needed at a later stage.
Well if we're going to condemn GOV.UK for denying entry to Geert Wilders, then I guess we'd better condemn the Canadian government for denying George Galloway entry to Canada. Basically the reason is the same: they think free speech is a privilege, one that can be taken away if it looks like making trouble for the government. Same excuse: 'A threat to security'.
Wilders was not a threat to UK security - and what's more - denying his entry into the UK looks like support for the murder of Theo van Gogh; Galloway is not a threat to Canadian security and denying his entry looks like support for wars of aggression.
My opinion: ask the two if they'd like to go on a joint speaking tour. Beef up security for the events and get this stuff - ALL OF IT - out in the open! Sweeping it under the carpet in whosoever's interest is adding to a creeping timebomb of community friction in both our countries. Get it out in the open; let the crazies on both sides demonstrate their willingness to use violence to silence those they disagree with, and let the law deal with them as it should.
Sky news article: George-Galloway-Hamas-Support*-Sees-Him-Blocked-From-Entering-Canada-For-Being-A-Threat-To-Security
* Is this about Hamas support? Was it because Wilders is a racialist? Or are these convenient excuses, enough to ensure that we daren't protest against their gagging?
A definition of 'waste' is when a busload of Keynesian Economists drives off a cliff and there are a few empty seats.
"In January 2009 the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal in London heard the deputy district judge, who adjudicates largely on civil matters in Lincolnshire, now accepts she had a drink problem and admitted bringing her profession-into disrepute.
The tribunal also heard that six months later, Cunningham appeared drunk while teaching on a two-day legal training course."
The government's top medical adviser has drawn up plans for a minimum price for alcohol which would double the cost of some drinks in England.
measures based on Article 30 of the Treaty cannot be justified unless they are necessary in order to attain the objective pursued by that article and that objective is not capable of being attained by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade....and...
In this case it must be observed that the objective of protecting public health may be adequately attained by increased taxation of manufactured tobacco products, which would safeguard the principle of free formulation of prices.
In this the second of my articles about my Libertarian Values, I am going to confront head on the Economy, the problems that we face at the moment, the Libertarian solution in the short term, and our longer term vision for Economic recovery in the UK.
I will begin by saying that this vision does not include the UK being in the EU, nor being a controlled part of the Global circus that is currently shaping itself to become a single world currency, managed by the very same people who have made this current crisis not just a possibility, but a reality.
My belief is that the people best placed to manage the economy of the UK, are the people of the UK, from the bottom up, not from the top down.
We are now all fully aware that the Global economic crisis, a major recession in each and every country, has been promulgated by government actions to encourage the Banks and financial institutions around the world to lend to those who cannot afford the debt, and would have never been able to repay. The Banks having seen that the risks to themselves in following these political guidelines were catastrophic, and having seen the regulatory bodies split into unmanageable and unaccountable slices, such as the FSA in the UK, devised mechanisms by way of shady financial instruments in order to put off what everyone else knew was totally non-sustainable growth.
The answer from this government, having run out of real money and reserves, has been to create, out of thin air, by placing nominal figures into a magical spreadsheet, trillions of pounds worth of debt, to give to the banks, who will then leverage that magic money by lending to other institutions and customers to create ever more debt, and at the same time invite them to buy government Gilts in order to make the magic money disappear. But no one is buying.
This is the road of madness, because all that is really happening is that you are again putting off the fateful day when that illusionary debt has to be repaid, and a credit crisis of even larger magnitude will befall us all, placing the population of Britain into permanent bankruptcy and reducing us to the status of a 3rd world banana republic.
The encouragement by this government, and of the opposition parties in the UK Parliament to this festival of debt is based upon the premise that the population are still gullible enough to believe that they need more debt to get out of trouble not less.
I believe that the people of Britain are far more sensible than that. I believe that they know that what is required is not government giving more money to banks to lend to them, not more bailouts to manufacturers to stay afloat, not worthless cuts in VAT to encourage people to spend, but real money at the bottom of the pyramid.
I wrote an article previously about Quantitative Easing, outlining a Libertarian short term solution to this problem, giving a practical way forward, so I will re-iterate some of it here again.
Economies are not led from the top, they are created and maintained by funds flowing up the chain. They may be controlled at the top, regulated from the top, but they all rely on one thing. The purchasing power of individuals and business at the bottom.
We all know that the car industry does not need funds from government to survive, that will only lead to standstill, it needs buyers of the vehicles that it produces.
I have seen several options as to how this can be achieved, the first Bush stimulus, the $300 to $1200 in tax-rebates was one such attempt, which is now mirrored by the Japanese approach to the crisis as PM Taro Aso, has decided to gift 12000 yen to every adult and up to 8000 yen to 18-21 years olds and those over 65.
But a simple one off give-away is not going to be enough to stop the rot, as that bottom up approach needs to be sustained.
Brown could be really brave here and buck the global trend to resolve the economic problems of the UK, and rather than assisting in the concentration of financial power with so called quantitative easing measures, he should be reducing the tax burden of those at the bottom of the pyramid.
To reduce basic income tax at all levels to a standard 10% would increase the disposable income of 90% of the working population. These funds would immediately be used to pay off debt, reduce bank overdrafts and credit card balances, put into savings, spent on pension funds, purchase new goods in shops, which in turn would increase the manufacturers orders to the suppliers of raw materials, in short it would stimulate the entire economy. We need real money being fed into the economy from the bottom up. It would also have the added benefit of removing much of the Bank's vice like dominance of the financial sector.
The reduction in taxation would immediately arrest this downward trend, it would put real money back into the economy and encourage spending again. We can turn this around but only if we act in the best interests of Britain.
The people of Britain don't want more credit, they now want real money, real solutions and real leadership from Government to make this happen. But this cannot happen whilst our economic, manufacturing and regulatory lives are dictated by the EU as it is now.
We can arrest this problem, but in order to make this a sustainable solution, we also need to look at making some very widespread and fundamental changes to the Economy overall.
The Libertarian manifesto outlines those requirements in some detail, which will enable us to survive into the centuries ahead, with or without the rest of the world following suit. It will allow us to conduct our international trading, yet at the same time protect the domestic affairs of the population of Britain.
The monetary reform proposals consist of three central planks. However, and before we can talk about what we'd like to change, we need to take a brief look at how the current banking system works, and expose the flaws that our policies seek to address.
Most people think that the government creates all of our money by printing banknotes, and minting coins. But that is not the case. Let's start by looking at where the government gets its income from.
Government Income
Banknotes are printed by the Bank of England (BoE) on behalf of the government. The BoE then sell those notes at face value to commercial banks, who use them to fill their cash machines and to hand over to us when we withdraw money from our bank accounts. The profits from the sale of these notes by the BoE (known technically as seigniorage) is passed straight back to the government, and netted the Treasury the sum of £2.3 billion in the tax year 2007/08.
The second source of government income is well known and hated by us all—taxes.
Finally, the government gains income through borrowing. If insufficient funds have been brought in through seigniorage and taxation to meet the government's spending commitments, it sells bonds. Bonds are the equivalent of a government IOU, and promise the holder that the government will buy them back at a future date for the value of the bond plus some predetermined interest.
Raising money through selling bonds has a huge downside, though. It means that the government incurs debt. And, like the rest of us with debts (on a credit card, for example), the government ends up paying a sum of money each year simply to service those debts. Government estimates for 2007/08 put the figure that it will have spent on servicing its own debts at a staggering £30 billion—over 20% of the total amount of income tax that we all paid!, although that has now risen to the incredible amount of 110% of income tax receipts this year alone.
Money From Thin Air
Currently, around 97% of the 'money' in our economy isn't in the form of notes that you can fold, or change that weighs down your pockets—it's in the form of credit (or debt, depending upon which side of the transaction you are standing). So the real question to be asking if we want to understand where our money comes from is how all of this debt appears?
Our commercial banks create money as debt, effectively from 'thin air'.
Imagine a person paying, to keep the example straightforward, £100 in notes or coins into their bank account. Now, bankers know that most of the time, most people leave their money in their bank accounts; we tend to pay for goods with our debit cards, or by writing cheques to one another. Consequently, if a bank has just received £100 in cash it knows that there is little chance that the depositor is going to come along and ask for it back at any moment.
Knowing this, banks only keep on hand a certain proportion of deposited funds; the amount that they reasonably expect they will need to cover any requests for withdrawals. The amount is termed the reserve ratio, and for any funds deposited, a bank will solely keep the amount of the reserve ratio on hand, and lend out the remainder. The whole process is known as fractional reserve banking (FRB).
So, to carry on our example, if the bank that person paid his £100 into maintained a reserve ratio of 10%, the bank would accept the £100 deposit, keep £10 on hand, and lend out the remaining £90.
But what happens to that £90 loan? The individual or business who takes it from the bank will probably not just spend it straight away, but deposit it into their bank account. If they do so in cash, the whole process can start again. Assuming that their bank also maintains a 10% reserve ratio, the bank will accept the £90 deposit, keep £9 on hand, and lend out the remaining £81.
And so the process continues. In fact, if fully worked through the system, that original £100 deposit will end up having 'created' a total of £1,000 that can be spent in the real economy.
In accounting terms, no money is actually created. If each borrower were to pay back their loan in sequence, the debts would unwind until we were left with our original £100 deposit at the first bank. This is why those who defend the existing system will tell you that no new money is really created.
What these folks conveniently overlook, however, is that in real terms, as opposed to accounting niceties, new money has appeared—it's in your hands, and you can spend it. And as long as new bank deposits are being made, the process above can continue.
Keeping The Merry-go-round Turning
And what allows the entire process to continue is our central bank—the Bank of England. Remember the bonds that the government sells to raise additional funds, the Treasury IOUs? Well the BoE will, from time to time, buy bonds in the market. To pay for its purchases, the BoE genuinely does create money from thin air, and credits the seller's account with money that it has just decreed should exist.
This process injects new money into the economy, which spreads about and ensures that the fractional reserve system described above never grinds to a halt.
If it wishes to, the BoE can use the same process in reverse; selling Treasury securities and destroying the money the purchaser pays. In this manner, the BoE has a crude control mechanism available for determining how much money exists in our economy at any one time.
The BoE also sells money to the commercial banks. These banks buy money at one rate, then loan it out to their customers at a higher rate, pocketing the difference.
The above is, of necessity, a simplified explanation of how FRB operates, and the role played by the central bank. The Bank of England do not appear to have ever produced a layman's guide to these processes, but the US Federal Reserve has. Although several years old now, this document is still a good guide to the operation of a fractional reserve system, and largely applicable to the regime in the UK as well as the US. This video provides an excellent introduction to the problems outlined above. If you wish to look at the technical detail for the UK system, the Bank of England's Handbooks In Central Banking series of publications, and in particular Handbook #24 (Monetary Operations), is a good place to start.
And whilst the above is a simplistic version of the processes at work, remember that much of the complex language and obscure practice of the banking industry is designed to mask its operations from public scrutiny. At its heart, it is a simple fraud: central banks genuinely creating money from thin air, and commercial banks lending money that's not rightfully theirs to loan. As the famous economist JK Galbraith once noted: "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled."
Why Have We Got This System?
The short answer is because bankers profit from it!
Remember the seigniorage that the government receives from the printing of banknotes by the Bank of England? That brought £2.3 billion into the Treasury last year. Estimates by Huber and Robertson back in 2000 suggested that the loss in seigniorage to the government by allowing commercial banks to create money was in the order of £49 billion per annum. And, of course, the more money that exists within the economy, the greater this loss is to the government.
The big driver for commercial banks is the interest that they charge on loans. Obviously, the more loans that they have on their books, the greater the potential amount of interest that they can earn. Simply by being able to loan (effectively) the same money over and over again, they are able to develop multiple interest income streams from a single deposit. Banks also profit from the business of actually arranging loans. Most will charge a small percentage of a loan's value simply for allowing you to enter into the loan contract with them.
We've enjoyed this system—largely unchanged—since the Bank of England was first established in 1694. Seeing the obvious benefits to themselves, bankers around the world have, over the centuries, embraced a model first imposed upon the people of our nation.
But it's a flawed model. It's one built to serve the interests of the few, not the many. It's one that results in the scourge of inflation. It's one whose time has long passed.
To build a strong bridge from our unfair and failed banking system to an honest and prosperous future one requires some sturdy materials. The Libertarian Party's monetary reform proposals consist of three central planks.
Plank One: Sterling — A National Currency That Belongs To The Nation
Our first key proposal is to wrest the privilege of creating money from the private banking industry, and to return it to where it rightfully belongs: the Crown.
Where an increase in the money supply is required to maintain monetary value—because of a growth in the underlying economy—government will spend the newly created debt-free money into the economy in the form of financing capital works, paying the salaries of public sector workers and so on.
This money will be the money that we are all familiar with: pounds Sterling. Our national currency, it will once again become the property of the nation. Out of control inflation caused by feckless bank lending will become a thing of the past, as we will demand that all Sterling be 100% reserved. All income from seigniorage will end up in the public purse, to provide funds for necessary government activities.
Should a particular government abuse its position and create more money than the economy requires, all of us—as the electorate—will have the opportunity to do something about the situation at the ballot box. This is in stark contrast to the current position, where inflationary pressures are created by unelected private bankers; people who actually have a vested interest in causing such pressures in the first place—the more money that they create, the greater their profits.
Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once said: "Money is too important to be left to central bankers". This is a position that we wholeheartedly endorse. The private banking industry needs to be removed from involvement in the creation of our national currency and, as US President Thomas Jefferson remarked over 200 years ago: "The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs"; to the government of the nation, on behalf of the entire nation.
How To Prevent The Fractional Reserving Of Sterling?
A key point of these proposals is to prevent the fractional reserving of pounds Sterling in the future. As banks must be allowed to continue taking deposits and making loans in Sterling, this raises a potential problem.
To illustrate the problem, cast your mind back to the person depositing £100 in cash into his bank in our example above. Currently, the bank taking that deposit has no way of knowing if the money is government produced (debt-free) money, or if the person depositing it has acquired it via a loan. Without being able to distinguish between debt-free and debt-laden money, the bank cannot determine whether it should be allowed to re-lend that money.
In the days before computerisation of the banking system, this issue would have been easily dealt with. When there was a direct one-to-one relationship between money and the physical representation of it (the banknote), everybody knew where they were. However, it would be totally absurd in this day and age to return to the historic system of having fleets of security vans ferrying physical banknotes around the country between branches and different banks.
Various solutions to this problem have been mooted by different experts. Fortunately, the very technology that has largely rendered banknotes obsolete—computers, with vast amounts of cheap data storage—offer us the potential for tracking money through the banking system, to ensure that is only capable of being on loan to any one person at any time.
Those who run the banking computer systems have not had cause to give much thought to these issues to date, as they don't currently require this functionality. As a responsible political party, we intend to fully consult with private banking institutions to develop a future system that is both effective and transparent.
No matter that any such system would mean changes in the way that banks do business, we need to remember that what we are talking about here are solely implementation issues. Whether hard or simple for banks to adapt to, such mere procedural issues must not be seen as a barrier to prevent the much needed structural change from occurring. No government fails to attempt to apprehend criminals simply because it would be easier to allow them to roam free; and no government should shy away from monetary reform simply because the changes required might be arduous for the private banks to implement.
Plank Two: Pounds Sovereign — A 'Hard' Currency
In addition to reforming how pounds Sterling are created and handled, the Libertarian Party is proposing the introduction of an additional, parallel, currency: pounds Sovereign.
What gives our money today the value that it has is simply our trust that the government, and the banks, will honour it. There is no physical commodity backing Sterling: it is what is known as a fiat currency.
Our money was not always like this. In the past, precious metals such as gold and silver (the origin of our pounds Sterling) were kept by banks, and banknotes issued in relation to the amount of precious metals on hand. Such hard currencies proved remarkably resilient over the centuries, and really only died off during the 20th century with the explosion in fractional reserve banking.
Precious metals like gold have held their value—their real purchasing power—remarkably over the ages. Back in Roman times, an ounce of gold would have bought you a good quality toga, belt and sandals. Today, that same ounce of gold would pay for a quality suit, belt and a pair of shoes5.
Metals, and particularly gold, are still of great value in the world economy. This is never more true than during times of economic trouble, such as that which we are facing right now. Whilst fiat money may be refused as a means for financing foreign trade, gold never is.
Back in 1999, Gordon Brown decided to sell off over half of the UK's gold reserves via auction—an act described by Peter Fava, then head of precious metal dealing at HSBC, as "a disastrous decision"6. Not only was the decision to sell the wrong one, but trailing it in advance guaranteed that prices would be depressed prior to the auction. As Martin Stokes, former vice-president at JPMorgan, said: "I was surprised they had chosen the auction method. It indicated they did not have a real understanding of the gold market"6.
Gold is still key to the operations of most central banks around the world. At the end of the financial year in March 2007, the United States held 8,133 tons of gold, Germany had 2,422 tons and France had 2,710 tons. Britain, currently the fifth largest economic power in the world, at least on paper, had a pitiful 315 tons6.
The Libertarian Party is proposing to reintroduce a hard currency, one backed by gold: pounds Sovereign. Although we would expect it to be initially used largely to fulfil international trade obligations, such a currency would have the added advantage of attracting foreign investors into the UK, as it would provide a secure harbour for their money in a turbulent world market. Over time, and if both the amount of gold held by the Treasury and the demand from the public was great enough, pounds Sovereign could become a commonly used currency in all our daily lives.
Plank Three: Free Banking
Another approach to banking reform that is advocated by some is the concept of free banking. Within a free banking system, there is no government control over currency or banking whatsoever—market forces determine everything. A free bank would be able to create its own currency, and make its own decisions as to how it would operate—choosing to embrace FRB if it wished.
The idea is that you—the customer—would make your own decisions as to which banking institutions and currencies to use; with pure market forces determining which survived and prospered, and which fell by the wayside.
The Libertarian Party is committed to allowing a plurality of choice in as many situations as possible for the citizens of the UK. Consequently, allowing a free banking regime to be instituted is the third plank of our portfolio of monetary reform proposals.
If the adherents of the free banking model are proved right, and such a system is embraced by the consumers of banking services, then over time free banks will become predominant in our economic system. If, on the other hand, the system isn't well received by the public, few, if any, free banks will come into existence or survive.
That's the real beauty of a truly free market: what is ultimately available to the consumer are the products and services that consumers create and sustain a demand for.
Money has to come from somewhere. Currently, money is created by the banking industry and, with the exception of the seigniorage on physical banknotes which returns to the Treasury, the profits from creating money stays within this private industry.
Our proposals for monetary reform address the issues raised above in three ways. Firstly, we will return the sovereignty of our national currency—pounds Sterling—to the Crown, with new Sterling being created, debt-free, by the government, and thence spent into the broader economy. The amount of Sterling in circulation will be prevented from being expanded through FRB, stopping bank generated inflationary spirals developing, and keeping the value of your savings safe.
Secondly, we will create a new currency, pounds Sovereign, to be 100% backed by gold. Still vital for international trade, a gold-backed currency will be immensely strong, and help protect the UK from the storms and squalls that sometimes rip through international markets. In providing a safe haven, this currency will attract investment from many overseas into the UK.
Thirdly, we will legislate to allow for the creation of free banks. If these prove popular with the market—the citizens of our nation—they will grow and prosper, with their currencies likely supplanting Sterling as the primary means of exchange on a day-to-day basis. However, and should they fail, such failure will not impact on anyone who chooses to keep their banking facilities purely denominated in pounds Sterling. In this way a genuine free market in banking will be able to be tried, without the risks being spread over the general population.
We believe that the proposals outlined above are sound and necessary. Our existing banking system has been creaking from one crisis to the next over many years, and has only remained unchallenged because of the enormous influence that those who most benefit from it—the private bankers—wield over our elected politicians.
It's a broken system. And, uniquely amongst the UK's political parties, the Libertarian Party is ready to fix it.
You can see the full Economic strategy and long term goals of the Libertarian Party on our website at http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto/economy.php
I read a post on the members forum which said that that, when attempting to recruit friends to join LPUK, the sticking point always seemed to be our policies on the welfare state.
Our member's experience rings true. I don't think there is any question that a referendum on the welfare state would produce a result that would be in favour of retaining the current system. So, if we are to make progress with recruitment, we need to analyse why it is popular and I think there are two categories of reasons that explain it.
Firstly, people like it for what could be described as selfish reasons. Most people are afraid of the future and catastrophes like redundancy, disablement etc are possibilities for us all. So we feel less afraid if we know there is a safety net that will protect us and our families from homelessness and starvation.
Secondly, the welfare system is supported for more altruistic reasons. Most people do not want to see others suffer and are happy to contribute to ensure they do not. There is also a sense that living in a society with a strong welfare system makes people feel good about themselves- the welfare state becomes the embodiment of these altruistic instincts and supporting it makes people feel civilised.
So why are libertarians opposed?
Well, some would say for selfish reasons- we don’t like our money being forcibly removed from us in taxation and given to someone else. In fact, the reason we don’t like this is not principally because it impoverishes us- our antipathy is founded in a fundamental libertarian aversion to the interference of the state in our lives. And yet this gives us a problem of presentation.
I have been making a few contributions over at Liberal Conspiracy where the bloggers are generally a mixture of liberals and hard leftists. On LC libertarians are often portrayed as out of time 19th century mill owner types railing against the state for not allowing them the freedom to exploit their workers any more. This portrayal is powerful because it gives the statists the moral high ground- as long as they can argue that libertarians want to see starving children back on the streets, we are somewhat on the back foot.
My objections to the welfare state are not based on the fact that I have to contribute to paying for it but because it does not work. In 50 years of operation it has produced a significant underclass of benefit claimants who have been told it is their right to be fed, clothed, housed and cared for by the state. The intention was to shield the unfortunate from poverty but the effect has been to blight millions of lives by amputating their aspiration. I firmly believe that human beings are naturally motivated to aspire, to innovate, to change things for the better (including the quality of their own lives) and that to take away the impetus to do so is to waste lives. Why should someone work when he is worse off by doing so? Why would he get up on a cold winter morning when it is cosier to sleep on in bed and there is no downside to doing so?
And I believe if we are to win the debate on welfare, this is the argument we need to push. We are not against the welfare state because we think it is unfair that we are forced to pay for it (although of course it is) but because it is counter-productive to its aim of helping those that need help. A good analogy is the response to the alcoholic beggar.
The liberal would put a pound in the tin. It will be used to buy cheap drink.
The statist would stop all the passers by and compel them at gunpoint to put money in the tin until the beggar has enough money to buy food, clothing and a house. The money will still be spent on drink.
The libertarian would help the man get up and assist him in finding a job explaining that once he is earning, he will have enough money to buy as much good quality drink as he can swallow!!!
However, when part of that demonstration is designed to incite, it is right,
as was visible on TV and YouTube videos, that the police take the
appropriate action to ensure the safety of both sides.
The scenes that I watched were fairly noisy and potentially violent, however
no-one on either side was assaulted or hurt which demonstrates that the
police undertook their role professionally and effeciently, but failed in
their duty under present laws to remove the provacative posters. In light of
this, the 2 arrests which the police did make were disproportionate to the
events.
A further consideration is that whatever one feels about the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, when our troops are put in harms way by the decisions of
politicians, they are undertaking a role not of their choosing, a role which
is a matter of life and death to them. The Armed Services in that respect
deserve our full unreserved support.
We should reserve and vent our distain at the politicians who made that
decision to go to war initially, and for those who support its continuance.
In that, I feel that the demonstrators who made their presence felt in Luton
were both misguided and probably misled.
Ian Parker-Joseph
Leader - Libertarian Party UK
.
We excoriate Hamas for hiding its personnel and munitions in civilian areas, and call them "cowardly terrorists". We should start using that same formulation for those who use "the children" as an all-purpose justification for increasing taxes and the power of the state. They are economic terrorists, and should be called such at every opportunity.
- Laird, commenting on this article over at Samizdata.
The government are a nasty bunch with whom I fundamentally disagree on a vast range of issues. But I simply don't see the political will there for the subversion of hundreds of years of democracy. And I think such talk is scaremongering, and distracts us from the real issues.
Should I be wrong, I shall of course be extremely distressed, and in my distress shall eat my words tearfully, but look at this situation with a sharp dose of reality: are riots on British streets, should they even occur, really going to take from us what two World Wars and the Iron Curtain could not? Are the British Military, treated so shabbily by this government, going to take to the streets against civilians on the whim of Gordon?
What I think we are far more more likely to see is a continuing and probably accelerating loss of civil liberties and increase in State activity in areas of our lives, and maybe eventually, we will descend to the state we would be in were the Civil Contingencies Act to be immediately invoked - but I have to admit, however much I may worry and harp on about our freedoms in this country - there is still a long way to go before that.
The evidence for that, for starters, is that I'm able to write this blog post and you're able to read it.
“In 2005, 671 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in Great Britain, this was 21 per cent of all deaths from road accidents, the lowest total for over 40 years.
The total number of deaths in road accidents fell slightly by 1 per cent to 3,201 in 2005 from 3,221 in 2004. However, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years.
Just over half (52 per cent) of people killed in road accidents in 2005 were car users. Pedal cyclists and two-wheeled motor vehicle users represented 5 and 18 per cent of those killed respectively. Occupants of buses, coaches, goods and other vehicles accounted for the remaining 4 per cent of road deaths.
The total number of road casualties of all severities fell by 3 per cent between 2004 and 2005 to approximately 271,000 in Great Britain. This compares with an annual average of approximately 320,000 for the years 1994-98 and 324,000 in 1984.
The decline in the casualty rate, which takes into account the volume of traffic on the roads, has been much steeper. In 1964 there were 240 casualties per 100 million vehicle kilometres. By 2005 this had declined to 55 per 100 million vehicle kilometres.
The United Kingdom has a very good record for road safety compared with most other EU countries. In 2004 it had one of the lowest road death rates in the EU, at 5.6 per 100,000 population. The UK rate was also lower than the rates for other industrialised nations such as Japan (6.96 per 100,000 population), and substantially lower than that of Australia (8.15) and the United States (14.66).”
