Closing 50% of Brent libraries? Welcome to the Big Society

Half of a communities libraries are closing, and the economy is nearing double-dip. Childhood absolute poverty is on the rise, and incomes across the field are suffering a real terms cut. But don't worry, Cammie et al have reintroduced the British Empire medal.
.
Six of the London Boroughs libraries are closing, and thousands have as a result signed petitions to lobby Jeremy Hunt into intervening to put a stop to it.
12,000 signatures have been gathered on a petition, and delivered to Hunts offices - with numerous school children all coming along.
.
You know what I always say? Judge a society by the state of its priorities. We will fork out for wars around the Arab world; proudly playing lil-empire again. We can fish out money for aircraft carriers destined not to ever see a single RAF jet. Then of course we can pay for all the jobless our daft economic strategy relegates to the welfare cues. But please God don't ask our coalition to fish money to maintain our ailing libraries network!
.
Can I ask my readers out there, where are the priorities?
.
Half of a London boroughs libraries are closing. But not only this basic principle; where everyone should have equal access to reading material (good for education you know) - it is more ethical than even that.
Did you know the borough in question has among the worst levels of child poverty?
.
Yep, in one of the poorest hit areas of London, Brent, in the North-West, they are shutting down the libraries.
.
According to the Observer, more than 11,000 children in Brent are classified as officially living in 'poverty'. That is, absolute poverty. That means going hungry, or cold, or without properly fitting shoes.
.
Starting to get the picture? Feeling my outrage too?
.
The March 11th Observer headline read:

'Thousands of Brent children in severe poverty'

Yet they are closing a vital public service. Possibly a central tool in a land of deprived kids. The question is, what will Jeremy Cunt ... sorry, Hunt will do. Want my wager? Feck all, unless the headlines get too bad. All these basket cases really give a shit about is their poll ratings after their euro-kicking.

Priories. This what it comes down to. Pure and simple.  Want to talk about EU membership?! What?! When 11,000 kids in one part of North-Western London are starving, cold and absolute in their poverty? And now it seems without books?
And my political friends wonder why I've left the Conservative & Unionist Party.

Maybe they should look in that mirror and decide what they are voting for, supporting and campaigning for. And what price-tag this 'Big Society' will come with for the next generation.

Tory addictions

The Guardian columnist Martin Kettle points out that the Tory addiction could cost the centre-right the next General Election. 


A question of 'in touch'


Knock on your neighbours door. Not now, this is an incredibly anti-social hour! But talk to them at some point, next opportunity. And when you do, let the conversation drift onto current affairs. When it does, I would put money on the truth being that their No1 priority is not a referendum on European Union membership.

The number of children in absolute poverty is rising, shockingly. Inflation is topping 5% (RPI measure), and the cost of living is pushing many households into a time of very real domestic austerity. Unemployment, especially for my age group, means the young face long term unemployment. Want to talk about Europe? No.

Essentially this is Martin Kettles case in the article. He would be right, frankly Europe is a Tory rightwingers obsession which is at best irrelevant to the lives the majority of normal subjects of Her Majesty faces. At worst, it is wilful ignorance of their plight.

So when one hears Tory Euro-rebels bash on about 'what their constituents want', maybe they might start to talk about the pace and scale of British austerity, rather than in-or-out referendums? Wouldn't that be more receptive on the doorsteps of hard pressed voters?

But the Euro-Rebels have shown a worrying sign for the future. Yes they lost in this case, but they may be emboldened in the longer term. Face facts, when you are a Tory MP in the position of, say Jacob Reese-Mogg; you don't care about talking of poverty. Why? Because he has to face a fellow Tory for selection to what will replace his constituency, when the boundary changes are implemented.
And that is the story for a handful of Tory 2010 intakers. So these new boys on the block will be preoccupied with one thing - 'How to secure selection by the grass roots?'. Answer? Bleat on about Europe.

So I'd certainly agree that the Euro-problems are a harbinger of what is to come. There will be a handful of Tory MPs interested in one thing, being as grass-roots nutter rightwing as they can. They will thus constantly flame the Euro-fire for the Tories facing the next General Election.
This Euro-nonsense of 'in or out' won't go away, because these out of touch backwoodsmen won't let it go away. They personally can't afford to.

And recent events teach us that a self-interested politician when threatened with eviction from the Big Brother House (sorry, Westminster) will go to nearly any lengths to protect their own interests.

Europe, more than any issue, will lose the Tories the next General Election to either another hung parliament or a Labour majority. That means one thing - disaster for Britain. 

Huffing & Puffing

The cohorts of the Tory fringe-right stood up; asserting that they would blow our House down. So they huffed, and they puffed, and still our House remains standing. What can we learn from the Tory Euro-rebellion?


The rebellion is over, and we now know that 82 Tory MPs rebelled against their party whip - just under half of them. It represents the biggest challenge to the coalition to date, and the end of any credit Cameron et al have with their Tory backwoodsmen. What what can we actually learn from the Great Euro Rebellion? And more importantly, is it anything we didn't already know or deduce for ourselves?

Polly Toynebee has produced a formidably accurate and powerful analysis in this area today. In her Guardian column, Toynebee argued that no - in fact it confirms rather than reveals information.

"This Tory rebellion tells us nothing we didn't already know"

 Personally I'd entirely agree with this conclusion. Not least as it is common knowledge that today, Tory MPs are selected primarily for their europhobia by their grassroots organisations.
So, when we see 50 of the newly arrived Tory MPs rebelling only 18 months into their own party being in power; it should come to may as no surprise at all.

Gone, sadly, are the days when the Tories had Ken Clarkes and Michael Hesseltines fighting against the europhobic canker. They stood bravely, and lost.

And of course 80% of the press are firmly eurosceptic, pushing myths and lies by the truckloads. Size of bananas, jelly shape, bell ringing, they exist by the sickening buckets load on the pages of the scaremongering press spreads.

Never mind, it seems, that barely 7% of our primary government legislation actually derives from the EU; they are governing us we are told. The Murdoch media empire firmly fans the flames of europhobia with their concurrent lies and untruths.

We also heard the usual concofany about the chance to be 'like Norway'.

Why on earth would we wish that upon ourselves?! Norway sits outwit the EU, and has to effectively 'pay for access'. They have a higher uptake rate on European Union legislation than we do now, they don't get to sit in on the meetings and summits where these rules are drawn up. Not only that, they have to pay money just for the privilege of being in the free trade area.
Naturally, we heard some sane voices, even from the Tory rank and file on this point. They Tory MP for North Dorset, Robert Walter who spoke beautifully about the Pro-EU vision and ideal. He moved many, and won praise from all sides of the House. Yet even he was shouted at, and derided by the swivel-eyed Europhobics. They foamed at the mouth, but the far-right backwoodsmen were sent packing.

Then there is the issue of the referendum. We are told that most people "want one". But then, you show me a time when the electorate ever said they didn't want one? Surely an e-petition where 100,000 peeps happened to click 'agree' on is a pathetic way to front the debate?
Thatcher, and Atlee had it right when they called referenda the instrument of dictators and despots.

But if we must have them, let the state fund both sides fairly and equally - and as Toynbee explains - exlude private funding like Ashcrofts from skewing the debate.

Let me conclude, again with Ms Toynbee.

"This is a fine distraction from the real cause of our worsening economic crisis, this governments extreme austerity choking demand."

What in five years?

Scots separation is against the momentum of our time, and it goes against the mood music of our European generation.

The headline is bold, attention-grabbing, "In five years' time, the Union will be no more". The heart flutters in the beating chest of the nationalist reader; it stops in the Unionist. Fear, optimism, uncertainty, disbelief. Has it really come to this, one is almost compelled to mutter allowed. Then sober consideration, thought, and ironic chuckle. Just another piece of well written speculative journalism.

These where all what first went through my mind before reading his piece. All in one instant, one fleeting flicker of a second. Then I read it.

Mood music


McKennas' case is heavily dependent on the dual thrusts of, firstly, SNP preparation. Second, of momentum.

Well on the first point of his case; prophetic vision of doom of this, United Kingdom is exaggerated. Does the SNP have superior resources in place, than the Unionist parties? On the initial face of it, perhaps. You have a Labour leader in Ed Miliband who can't be bothered learning the names of his northern candidates. You have a Scots Tory Party eagerly debating whether or not to dissolve their own London-link. Then you have the Liberal Democrats, who are still recovering from an electoral hammering from last Holyrood.

One must admit that it, on the face of it, does not look bright. Then we investigate further. Opinion polls consistently show a clear Scots voter preference for devolution-max. Then there is the reality that the Unionist parties south of the border have already begun discussions concerning creating a united front. Preparations are already taking place in the Unionist ranks too.

As for the second point, momentum, it is hard to deny the SNP have momentum. And I am not going to. Yet, let us realise something else, the Scots vote for an SNP majority last Holyrood does not translate into a Scots vote for separation. Far from it, only the complacent and arrogant among the separatist ranks would presume that it does.
The SNP have control over the political landscape up here in Scotland, granted. But on the critical question of support to tare up this United Kingdom - they still fail to show a tangibly consistent support outwit their core 1/3.

A preferred solution


Scotland is subsidising England. This is true. Scotland is increasingly ignored by London, this is the popular feeling. So what is our solution? To tare up a union more successful than even the Habsburgs? Of course not, it is to seek a compromise.

Scotland wants, and has a right to, significantly greater controls over its own resources and its own tax desires. The Scots people clearly want an end to this abject status-quo, this no-mans' land of Calman.

Full fiscal autonomy, or even more - outright devolution-max.

On the first option (my own preference), it would see Scotland gain its own fiscal freedoms. It would be capable of taking loans in its own right. It would gain control over domestic tax and spending. But there would still be monetary union with England, and a common bonds system at the UK level. This is as I understand this proposal.

The other, Devo-Max goes even further. It would see full fiscal freedoms (as per fiscal autonomy), but it would also see Scots bonds, and a Scottish seat at the UK monetary policy committee. It would see oil revenues secured in its entirety by Scotland, with only a modest Scots contribution to the UK government paying for its share of foreign and defence policy.

Surely either of these solutions makes more sense than separation? The Europe of tomorrow is supranational, it is overcoming the question of borders and lines on the map. So why, oh why do we wish to create a border at Gretna green? Scots separation is against the momentum of our time, and it goes against the mood music of our European generation.

If we must face down the SNP, let us Unionists thus articulate the positive case for either fiscal autonomy or devo-max. One thing is sure, the status quo is no longer tenable.

A question of referendums

Who would have thought it?, all this economic crisis going on and all some people want to talk about is holding plebiscites. 


The Conservative Party wants to talk about Europe. Yep, this seems to be the backbenchers of the Tory Party's biggest priority. Not the eurozone crisis, not the SNP threat to the Union, not apparently our stagnating economy. Nope, it is back to the future with the Tories 1995 style.

Anyone care to join me in a little reminisce?

We have a Tory government (okay, LibDems too), in power and drowning in scandal. We have a major question vis-a-vis the future direction of the EU. We have a Tory Party falling out over Europe. Am I the only one who thinks this is absurd?

Fact 1 folks: much of this Tory Euroscepticism is frankly English. What I mean is, Euroscepticism has become a major sign of English national identity. Scotland, Wales have all rediscovered their own identities in recent times, but England seems to be struggling to do likewise. But Euroscepticism is a very English impulse. It corresponds to the historic English antipathy to do with anything 'continental'. It is thus uniquely placed as a political topic to represent and function as a bridge-head for a modern form of English nationalism.

Fact 2: Europe is a certainty. The European Ideal has become a force of nature in our domestic political lives, and one that ought be welcomed. Workers rights? Thank the EU social acquis for pushing governments hard. Power over global conglomerates? Thank the EU for providing the transnational policy mechanisms for regulating (effectively) these capitalist functionaries. One could go on, but my point is made. Europe, and our postwar ideal is progressive, it is desirable and it is a fact of political life. Live with it, and try to reform it, not pretend it can be dumped.

Fact 3. A waste of time. Why is a proposed referendum on in our out of the EU even an issue? We have surely bigger issues to fry? Eurozone crisis anyone? Hello, millions of worried voters calling their MPs... is there intelligent life on planet Westminster?...

Just a couple of issues I really (really) wanted to get off my chest this grey Glasgow morning.

North-South divide grows

New data is showing that Scots are still dying earlier than the English, is it time to examine more than just lifestyle?
.
Anyone remember Jack McConnell unravelling his strategy to get Scots kids to change an increasingly unhealthy lifestyle? His campaign consisted of television adverts about healthy living, and billboard posters. Did it work? Predictably no. These types of 'healthy living' media strategies invariably don't.
.
If we take a gander at recent figures, its shows that the UK has a worsening north-south divide. According to a Scotsman report on the subject, 
.
"Statistics released by the Office for National Statistics and the Register General for Scotland disclosed that children born in the south of England statistically have a longer life ahead of them than those brought up in Scotland or the north of England."
.
Thus all the years of media awareness has had little to no impact at all. After all it is a sad thing that I can now type that the life expectancy gap between a Scot and an Englishman has grown wider - not smaller. 
.
Is it time therefore to focus on other options?
.
A new strategy
.
What is required is a new strategy, where media awareness campaigns continues, but in a complimentary function rather than a vanguard function. 
That is to say, the primary thrust comes from education reform. It really is all about education you know. 
.
If a kid grows up in a sink estate eating nothing but fish and chips is it a surprise that a mere media awareness campaign doesn't have any impact? What is required is offering help to parents on cookery, and healthy living - while getting kids more active at schools.
.
So, let us see more time spent on PSE (physical and social education). Accompanied with real government support programs for parents around the country; especially the more deprived communities. The state needs to be more active in supporting the hardest pressed families to make the most of what they have, not simply lecturing them to eat more fruit via a billboard poster!
.
So what does this mean in terms of the political parties?
.
The SNP have pledged to increase the time spent in schools participating in PSE, which is good. However there remains little in the way of a concerted and nationwide push on learning and support for families.
.
A soft policy & social learning based paradigm can be much much more effective than conditionality policies and media awareness offensives. Though naturally every aspect of policy type has its own role to play, we just need a new policy emphasis.

Lets talk defence

Sir Richard Dannatt has published an article in the Scotsman saying that 'building an army from scratch is near impossible' for an independent Scotland


Scaremongering isn't helpful


Dannatt has come out to tell us Scots that fielding our own military would be "difficult, verging on completely impossible". But isn't this a rather reckless, and generalising statement?

First things first, the type of armed force a nation would field depends on the international role it would seek to play. Thus, an Independent Scotland could, easily, field a coherent defence policy if its international role was to align to a neutralist foreign policy. One free from NATO, and free from foreign interventions. Or, an Independent Scotland would still construct a coherent defence picture, and still seek to play a role via NATO (if it so chose). If we think about it, the basic defence infrastructure is already here, and would still be here if we became independent.

A vote for independence wouldn't see a retreating English army bulldosing the airbases built in the North East. Nor would it see the eradication of all the Royal Navy port infrastructure either. My point is, even without the physical presence of the British Army, an independent Scotland could have access to their defence footprint they leave behind; in the form of airbases, naval infrastructure and so forth. Indeed, the only 'difficult' part about defence policy for an independent Scotland would be around the issue already mentioned, of what type of foreign policy we wish to pursue. A more neutralist one would demand a much much smaller navy, army and airforce. That said, one still keeping Scotland signed up to NATO would demand one capable of participating in limited foreign operations. But even in this scenario, Scotland's defence requirements would hardly be "verging on the impossible". Last time I checked, Estonia, Romania et al all managed successfully to participate in NATO without having to see their domestic budges being swallowed up by enormous defence spending.

Positive Unionism is


That all said, we Unionists must still ensure we are able to reject the Nationalist call for separation. And let us be frank, the way to do it isn't to pretend that Scotland would be at the mercy of some foreign Atilla if we don't have the merciful protection of an English-dominated army!

Instead let us highlight that the SNP haven't actually made up their mind as to what type of post independence army they would like to see. We have their Right Hon Admiral Angus, their Defence Spokesperson (based at Westminster...) arguing that an independent Scotland would keep their aircraft carrier contracts. But why? Salmond tells us that his movement would never sign up to NATO, so why have such an aggressive military weapon such as aircraft carriers?

Such questions, the SNP are unable to answer. This is not because Scotland can't fund its own defences (we can, and theoretically could), but because they Nats realise it won't go down well in their heartlands that their vision wouldn't require such high defence presence around Scotland.
The SNP seek a neutralist, almost isolationist approach, echoes of Scandinavia, in their vision for defence in the post Independence scenario. But what they hide is the fact that this choice means death for the defence spending-dependent communities around Scotland.

Thus let us Unionists highlight the real flaws in the SNP arguments around defence, and not talk down our Scottish capacities. Because the fact remains, we Scots can afford to defend ourselves post independence if we so choose. The result however would mean devastation for many communities around the land needing the higher-level spending that a British state undertakes to lavish on defence.

Lets face it: the SNP vision for defence in an Independent Scotland simply doesn't require UK-level defence spending. And Admiral Angus knows it.

Independence and economic trust

The Independent on Sunday has revealed some fascinating polling statistics, which convinces me of the relevance of a direct link between public trust in Unionist parties economic credibility, and support for separation


IoS poll


Before explaining my pet theory, here are the raw polling numbers:

Q: UK POLL: Scotland should be an Independent country, do you agree?
Yes - 39% (+6)
No - 38% (-4)

Q: Scotland-only: Scotland should be an Independent country, do you agree?
Yes - 49% (+11)
No - 37% (-9)

Q: I trust David Cameron & George Osborne to make the right decisions about the economy:
Agree - 30% (-1)
Disagree - 49% (-1)

Q: I trust Ed Miliband & Ed Balls to make the right decisions about the economy:
Agree - 18% (-)
Disagree - 55% (+1)

First up, on Qs 1 & 2, its changes since May, and on the last two questions, changes since August. That said, its also worth noting that the answers for economic trust are UK wide numbers (and could well vary from region to region). That all said, can we say, suggest maybe only, that there is a tangible link between the percentage trust in the main two Unionist parties economic abilities; and the percentage support for independence?

Perhaps it is reading too much into these numbers, but there could well be a link to be had. If it is the case, then it is clear that the upsurge in Scottish (and UK, wide) support for Scottish separation is primarily motivated by economic concerns.

1. Scottish voters don't trust the coalition with their economic future. So, they turn to the SNP suggestion of either devo-max or outright independence.
2. You have English & Welsh voters, who continue to (wrongly) belief that Scotland is somehow 'subsidised' by them; so they too support Scots independence
3. Neither the Labour or Tory front benches are able to convince Scots voters to trust them on the economy, so it pushes them lock, stop & barrel into the SNP

It isn't all that unbelievable is it? And if it is the case, the SNP and the cybernats out there tonight will be whooping with churlish delight at the lack of support for Lab & Tory economic strategies (such as there is two, that is).

Where does that leave the Unionists? Well, in dire straights. The evidence suggests that the best way to save the Union is to convince Scots that Westminster-led cuts are desirable for them and their economic future. May I be blunt? FAT CHANCE.

A split in the Scots centre-right is inevitable

Such are the differences between the Murdo camp and the Ruth Davidson camp, that no matter who wins; there is a good chance that there will be two centre-right parties after Nov 4th
.
Murdo Camp
.
I am unashamedly a fan of Mr Murdo Fraser. He has long been at the vanguard of the Scots Tory pro-devolution. In this campaign he has came out for a maximum devolution stance. Furthermore, he thinks that if it is to survive, a new centre-Right party must advocate the prudent and responsible use of the taxation powers coming Holyrood's way in the current Scotland Bill. To date, Murdo has gained strong support from most of the Holyrood MSPs in the party.

To be frank, Murdo is saying that devolution is the only game in town for Unionists now. And he is seeking to create a truly Scottish centre-right party; able to be unionist within the new devolutionary politics. As Alan Cochrane summed up, Murdo is saying that the party must "either adapt or die", and this does seem the reality to me.

Ruth Davidson


It would not be unfair to label Ruth as the 'Westminster' and 'Heirarchy' candidate. She is standing on an unashamedly pro-status quo ticket. She is arguing that what is needed is not a new brand, a new centre-right movement, and a more pro-devolution stance; just better campaign tactics.

Can I be frank and polite? Well here goes ... IT HAS ALL BEEN TRIED BEFORE! And it has never worked out. In fact, Ruth's recipe seems to be to carry on, much as before. No amount of internal reorganisations and improved campaign styles can compensate from the main central failures in the Scots right of centre movement:

1. Its still fundamentally anti-devolution (Which is totally daft)
2. It remains run from Westminster (currently, Goldie has only authority over MSPs...)
3. Its in hoc to the hierarchies and little factions within the structure of the 'Scots Tory' Party

Only a year-zeroing can enable us truly conservative, and right of centre Scots voters and campaigners to role back the social-democratic tide in Scotland.

This all said however, the divisions between the two camps remain too large a gulf to overcome; post election. No matter who wins, the pro-devolutionists in the movement will no longer allow ourselves to be held back by regressive anti-devolutionist mentalities. Nor will be squander the opportunity to make the Scots centre-right the pro-fiscal autonomy party. Either way, there is likely to be two political parties on the centre-right in the coming elections...

Rising unemployment, falling demand - still no Plan B

For the doubters, Scots can afford Full Fiscal Autonomy[1]

Unemployment figures are up in the UK, reaching a 17 year high. But with the coalition now well settled in power, can we really believe the Tory blame game?
.
Rising unemployment & falling demand
.
When you are faced with falling demand in an economy, a rise in unemployment ought to come as no surprise. But what would the most sensible economic plan be to restore a more desirable state of affairs?

Well, if we ask the Tory led coalition, we will rapidly find their solution; as they call it; is to cut public spending. Yep, at a time of anaemic growth figures, and an absence of bank lending; these twits seek to cut the only able spender in town. And that is exactly what the state represents at times like this - the only institution capable of borrowing and spending the necessary sums required to uphold demand in the wider economy.
Lets make this simple, so even the 'Conservatives' can understand it. If we have falling consumer spending on the high street, and the private sector isn't growing fast enough to mop up the sackings in the public sector; what is the solution? A) ignore it, and pray to the Gods of 'the market' to save us, B) SLOW DOWN REDUCTIONS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR? Hmm ... what do we all think?

Yes, even I must admit, the answer is pretty bleeding obvious. There must be a shift from high-octane spending reductions in the public sector, and a move toward slowing the pace down. After all, I'd sooner have  a worker with spending power in a public sector job than sitting on the job seeker. Let us not forget that if we pay a public sector worker wages, they return that money via consumer spending and taxation!

However we all still exist in a dark netherworld where there is simply no Plan B at Westminster. With the absence of Full Fiscal Autonomy here at home in Scotland, one feels rather like one lives in the surrealist world of Marebito.

Well ... there is clearly only one solution, campaign for full fiscal autonomy for Holyrood - so we don't ever have to suffer the idiosyncratic attitudes of the so-called 'Conservatives'. 


-----
[1] Figures from Argyll News

Demanding demand, the key to growth

'Tory Cuts' can be said to be undermining demand in the real economy

While our Prime Minister urges all of us to get more positive about the economy, surely he's missed the vital flagstones undermining our growth?


1. Demand


The first flagstone under which our economy is stagnating; risking a Japanese-style "lost decade" is demand. Or more specifically, the absence of it.

Growth risks being washed away if demand falls in the wider economy. And we have seen over the last nine months an effective washing-away of the economic growth hitherto so seen on the home front.
Yet, what could be the explanations for this stagnation? The Prime Minister, and the Conservative Party says its all down to global circumstances, like the eurozone debt crisis. (Ironically, they protested in opposition that UK growth back then wasn't subject to the prevailing global circumstances!). And being fair, it is indeed fair to say that instability in core UK export markets, like the eurozone, is contributing to the loss of growth in our economy. Everyone with a fair mind concedes this point. Yet, it doesn't vindicate the Tories at all, indeed, it does the opposite.

Who retains borrowing and spending power during tough times? Answer: the state. Thus, when consumers stop spending, banks slow down lending and firms stop investing in new projects - it falls to the state to artificially maintain demand across the swathes of the economy.
The Tory-led government has apparently failed to realise this. Their aggressive cuts agenda has acted to remove the state-function of maintaining demand in the wider economy. The net-result has been a decline in growth prospects, as domestic markets are rocked by the prevailing global instability.

But don't worry, Cammie et al tells us all that all we need is to be positive... "always look on the bright side of life" (okay, maybe Cameron didn't say that, but he may as well have).

2. Tax simplification


The next flagstone is the existence of a highly complicated tax code. It is a simple economic fact that the more complicated a tax code, the less competitive an economy becomes. And currently, the UK has one of the longest tax codes in the entire world.

What has the Tory-led government done about this? Precious little in concrete policy terms. While one is duty-bound to welcome the implementation of the 'one in one out' rule for new regulations; it doesn't go far enough. All this policy has done is to maintain the current status quo, and not add more problems to it. It isn't a policy agenda for aggressively reforming an uncompetitive UK tax code. In fact it has done the opposite, it has led to the Tory-led government sitting on its tax-code laurels.

3. Tax competitiveness

The Eire enjoys a corporation tax of 12.5%. Northern Ireland is likely to soon have the same rate, once tax varying powers are devolved. Maybe even Scotland could adopt similar low rates of business tax, if fiscal autonomy becomes a reality (and it might, if the SNP hold a multi-option plebiscite). But the Tory-led government in London, England, insists on corporation tax rates well over 20%. Even by the end of this parliament, Osborne will have cut the corporation tax rate down from 24% to 20%.

It is simple stuff to understand that the more competitive, and low, your business rates are, the more global business you will locate into the UK. But the current government has failed to heed this message, and thus does nothing.

To this blogger, these seem like the key three flagstones. Until this 'Conservative' led government actually moves on these economic fronts; with rigour and radicalism; we shall see perhaps double-dip economic recession. Maybe even a British lost decade, following in Japan's example. This isn't tolerable or acceptable. It is time for this government to either adopt new economic strategies, or simply get out of the way of those who will.

Seeking A New-Right

It has come to my attention that the mainstream 'Conservative' movement in Scotland, and the wider UK is no longer fit for purpose. It is time for those of us of a truly conservative disposition to seek A New-Right
.
Ethics and structures
.
When one heard our Prime Minister speak to the 'party faithful' at the Manchester conference, it occurred to me that he was not conservative. Pushing beyond particular policies, and issues, that one may instinctively 'feel' to be 'conservative'; lets talk guiding (and over arching) political philosophy.

Cameron, and the Conservative mainstream talk often about 'liberating' the 'individual' from the oppressive hands of an often overweening 'state'. Yet, by the very nature of this outlook they cannot describe themselves as philosophically 'conservative' (notice, the small 'c' there).
After all, to my understanding, a real conservative digs their foundation-thoughts on the grid and mortar of Aristotelian ethical structures. This demands a belief in the teleological structure regarding the role of man in society. To break that down for you all, the Aristotelian teleological structure contends that mankind has a 'common' version of how to lead 'the good life'. The 'good life' being the best way to lead a life, to fulfil the fullest potential, and to be capable of contributing at a humans peak ability.

Thus it follows this simple three stage process:

1. Man as he is  >>>>> 2. Virtues (by which one lives ones life) >>>>> 3. Man as he could be

Simple? Well agree or disagree, this basic teleological structure is the true base of the truly conservative mind. Why? Because rests in direct opposition to 'enlightenment' thinking, which attempts to lob off the third box' and pretend that we can all fulfil our own version of 'the good life'.

And if one compares what Mr Cameron and the Tories call for, they can see that they are inherently the product of the enlightenment thinkers! These so-called conservatives call for the small state, of laissez-faire practices and of the absolute integrity of the free market. Are they so stupid as to not realise that these 'values' are the product of liberal thinkers seeking to free the individual from the Aristotelian teleological structure?!

Mills and Hume sought to role back the state and develop free markets in a (totally flawed) attempt to enable the state to become a neutral arbiter between individuals; all seeking to lead their own vision of that 'good life'.

So one can quickly see, if not fully understand perhaps, that the modern day Conservative Party isn't bound to Christian ethical traditions (as Christianity pursues an Aristotelian teleological structure). Nor indeed can it claim to seek to 'conserve' a traditional outlook, as it simply echoes centuries of liberal thought.

Put simply, the modern day 'Conservative Party' is as much a product of the enlightenment thinking as socialism, communism, liberalism or social democracy (the list goes on). It cannot be conservative, it doesn't display the basic ethical structural prerequisite conditions.
.
A crisis of modernity
.
People often talk today of there being a distinct malaise in our modern life. That we are treated to cynical manipulation by politicians, and there is no sense of community. These people would be totally and 100% correct.
We do live in a world of manipulation, and cynical PR activities by professional 'representatives (who they represent in parliament is anyone's guess!). Why? The enlightenment falsehood that we can all pursue our own individual vision of our very own assumed 'good life'. What it leads to is the extremism of individualism which has destroyed our common community spirit, values and ethics. Cameron can keep his pathetic 'Big Society', what we need is a wholesale rethinking of how we view the individual within our wider society!

The 'Big Society' is little more than a recipe for Thatcherism with a miniaturised 'social awareness' stapled on the side. All that can lead to is the rampant, valueless, community-destroying outcomes so obvious in the 1980s. It, and the party propagating that vision, cannot but only add to our peculiarly modern malaise.

What we need is to rethink our ethics and structures, and if we do so, we can quickly realise that the modern day 'Conservative' movement in the UK is nothing of the sort. It is a pathetic, empty, vessel of failed enlightenment notions of the individual in society.

It is time for us all to seek A New-Right. One built on truly conservative philosophical foundations - Aristotelian ethical foundations.

No rest for the baby-boomers

Nick Hurd, Coalition minister, has called for baby-boomer's to work for charity (i.e. nothing) when they retire after a lifetime of work ... 


We all support volunteerism. Indeed it is a valued and vital aspect in the maintenance of a strong 'third sector'. It is admirable, it is noble and it is in the finest traditions of our Christian ethics.

Personally, I can't picture an old 66 year old wandering into Marie Curie and explaining as his rationale for volunteering 'Nick Hurd told me I ought to'. So when I hear junior Tory minister Nick Hurd telling the baby-boomer's that they really ought to volunteer instead of playing golf, I tend to scoff at the twerp.

Yet, it doesn't just reveal his tendency to whistle in the wind, it also reveals a worrying disconnect at the top of the Tory Party. Mr Nick Hurd clearly believes that the legions of the retired stop work, and play golf. So secure and well provided are they, that they have the time to volunteer, and work for nothing. Am I the only one seeing this nonsense? Last time I checked, my old Grandfather was still working, and he is 77!

What time does he have to work for nothing in volunteerism? What kind of financial security does he have that he can spend days playing golf at St. Andrews?

The long and short of it is that he, and millions like him simply don't. But the very fact that the Tories seem to think that he, and the millions like him can afford to work for nothing after retirement reveals their own disconnect about how the other half lives.

Nick Hurd's speech was aimed at the upper-middle class 'little Englander' brigade of the Tory home-counties. They may have the financial security to retire to the golf-course; but the millions of retirees desperately need that second job. Anyone checked the state pension lately? I bet little Nick Hurd, MP, couldn't afford to live on that, volunteer, and not need that retirement (paid) job!

Saying one thing, and doing the opposite: Tory Conference 2011

Osborne tells Conference that "solving the eurozone crisis" is his biggest priority, yet Tory MEPs vote against or abstain on the key votes in the EU parliament aimed at giving solution. Is this yet another example of a Party saying one thing, and doing the exact opposite? And if so, why?
.

Serious about the euro-crisis, so he talks about council tax freezes...

The Chancellor has made it his mission this conference to convince us all that saving the eurozone, so vital to our own economic well-being, is his priority. That he takes it seriously, and the term 'europragmatist' has even been coined at this conference; in an attempt to distance him from the absurdities of the Eurosceptics.
But, unfortunately for the over 500m citizens living directly in the single currency, Osborne and his Tory compatriots are not walking the walk.

It is revealing that the Tory MEPs have voted against the FTT and have abstained on key votes which will enhance the Euro Stability Fund. Not only that, but Cameron has come out saying he'd oppose eurobonds for Euro-area member-states; despite the absurdities of the status quo.
After all, how can we have a single currency and single monetary policy yet have every single eurozone member trapse to the bond markets separately?

But don't worry, Osborne tells us that "We're all in this together". Yeh, all the way to a EU-wide default, a Japan-style lost decade and the end of the geopolitical stability the European Ideal has given birth to.

Am I the only one getting really hacked off by this party leadership saying one thing, and typically doing the opposite? 

Well hung, with few surprises

There is no reason for a Tory swagger, nor a Labour smugness as we enter the final stages of the conference season
.
Fairness and policy
.
Banking profits are up 136%[1] since the financial crisis began. The richest 10% are doing fine, with the top 1% shooting up.[2] All the while living standards have fallen 7%[3].

Also in the trends, women are increasingly leaving work, and returning to the home. Something which isn't surprising if one considers the costs involved in childcare.

So these are the immediate issues in the 'fairness' dynamic that both major parties have attempted to address in conference season. The Tories solution is to increase the 'right to buy' discount (England & Wales only), but  with the caveat that a new home is build for every one sold. Then there is Labour, who ignored policy altogether, even the self-serving gifts to their own grassroots. Red Ed gave us a lecture on 'good' business and 'bad' business...this from a man whose first 15 years of working life can be summed up in one sentence, 'Labour Party employee'...

So, frankly, neither party is really offering anything substantial. Tory, busy revitalising a policy which will keep their rightwing happy (and helps keep the coalition going). Labour, a utopian speech which is totally light on actual policy content. Does either one give you a shot in the arm? Does either one make you believe that these fairness questions will be turned around? No? Well ... that makes two of us then.

---
References:

[1] Time Magazine, Sept 27th 2011
[2] Guardian Newspaper, Poly Tonybee, 01/10/11
[3] ibid