Normally, I tend not to get too over-excited by events in the courtroom, mainly because of a shameful lack of interest which probably stems from a shameful lack of knowledge over how the system actually works. But a few issues this week really made my blood boil.
The battle for the 'soul of America' (something I'm not entirely sure exists anyway) looks set to be fought across the courtroom. No two issues divide America more than abortion and same-sex marriage. And in the same week, cases crucial to both issues have reached the courtroom. In Wichita, Kansas, Scott Roeder is set to stand trial for the murder of Dr George Tiller. All very normal, you might think. A crazy American with a gun, what's new? Except Dr Tiller was one of the few doctors in the U.S. to perform late-term abortions, and this was the very reason why Roeder shot him. He readily admits doing so, but he and his legal team claim that he should be tried for voluntary manslaughter as he performed the act to save the lives of unborn children. There have been the inevitable difficulties in selecting neutral jurors for the trial. It does not need explaining what a dangerous precedent this would set if the court found in Roeder's favour. We must hope that this first battle for America's soul does not put doctors who perform abortions in danger.
The second battle, over same-sex marriage, is taking place in a California courtroom. The notorious Proposition 8, the California referendum against gay marriage, is being challenged at the U.S. Supreme Court in San Francisco. The court will have to decide whether same-sex unions are protected by the constitution. Supporters of Proposition 8 have outright claimed that this is a 'battle for the soul of America'. With same-sex marriage suffering setbacks in New York and New Jersey recently, let us hope that the battle is won by the forces of progress rather than the darker, reactionary half of America. Those that argue that this is not the latest American civil rights case are wrong. It is, simple as that. And in both these cases, the American courtroom, its judges and its jurors, must come to the right decision, to prevent both anarchy and reaction.
So, the courtroom is set to be crucial in America, but apparently us Brits no longer have a need for it. Today, the first criminal trial to take place without a jury in 400 years began, with four defendants accused of an attempted robbery at Heathrow airport in 2004. The Court of Appeal's ruling that "the danger of jury tampering and the subversion of the process of trial by jury is very significant" means that Mr Justice Treacy will be both judge and jury in the case. The lives of these four men, innocent until proven guilty, are in the hands of just one. And all this without the evidence of jury tampering ever being presented to the accused's lawyers, but presented in court by the police under 'public interest immunity'. Hardly a brilliant example of democracy, is it? I am part of the public, and my interest is in making sure a fellow citizen gets a fair trial.
A crucial week in the courtroom on both sides of the pond, then, with 'America's soul' at stake on one side and the fair hearing of John Twomey and his associates at stake on the other. And never before have I had quite so little faith in the Western courts of law to make the right decision.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Friday, 8 January 2010
Owen Coyle: Hypocrite
Before I start getting angry and ranting, I must just say one thing. What Owen Coyle achieved in little over two years in charge of Burnley Football Club was nothing short of remarkable. When he took over in November 2007, Burnley were languishing mid-table in the second tier of English football and had been doing so for nearly a decade. He reinvented the side's style of play, instilled belief into the players and the fans that something could be achieved and, against all odds, achieved what had previously been unthinkable. A brilliant run to the semi-finals of the Carling Cup was followed in May by victory over Sheffield United at Wembley which ensured a return to the top flight for the first time in 33 years. It was the best of times. Burnley have coped well in the Premier League, with excellent home form in sharp contrast to dire results on their travels, and Coyle had obtained god-like status with the supporters.
Until now. Owen Coyle is the new manager of Bolton Wanderers, having joined the club this week. Every Burnley fan with a brain knew that he would one day move on to bigger and better things, his ability certainly deserves it. We didn't think for a minute that he would stay at Burnley for years to come. Clearly an ambitious man, Coyle is capable of managing at a much higher level. But the manner of his departure leaves a bitter taste in the mouth, and has lead to the freefall of Coyle's reputation amongst fans that used to idolise him and, dare I say, football fans in general. Burnley supporters could have accepted him moving upwards, to an Everton or Aston Villa for example, but the sideways move he has made to join Bolton Wanderers is stunning. Bolton, in spite of their greater funds, are two points below Burnley in the Premiership table and play a horrendous brand of football that Coyle will have his work cut out to change. They are in huge debt, and have unloyal supporters who, as was proved with the unfortunate Gary Megson, will turn on their manager at the first opportunity. Nobody other than Bolton fans, and apparently Owen Coyle, believes this is a good move for a manager with such talent and reputation. I do not buy the idea that Coyle is a Bolton man through-and-through. He played for the club for two seasons, not even as a first team regular, in a career that saw him play for many clubs. He was in a win-win situation at Burnley. Relegation would not have damaged his reputation, and he could have departed in the summer with our best wishes. If he had masterminded a survival, he would have had his name etched into BFC folklore even more than it had been already, and his reputation would have been increased tenfold. At Bolton, he must keep them up. It is as simple as that. Relegation would deal a tremendous blow to his reputation.
The timing of the move is another issue. To leave the club at the start of the January transfer window- a crucial time for any club, particularly one looking for reinforcements to help stave off the threat of relegation- is cruel, and extremely damaging. Best-laid plans will have to be re-thought, and the new manager, whoever he will be, will have very little time to get to grips with the current squad and add to it. And to leave for a relegation rival, a club in direct competition, doubles the blow. Coyle has, on the face of it, boosted Bolton's season, while at the same time potentially crippling Burnley's. That is inexcusable.
But more than anything, what niggles at Burnley the fans the most is that we never expected this of Owen 'God' Coyle. Coyle was a man who appeared to buy into the history of the club. He built a rapport with the fans. He railed against footballers motivated by money. He described himself as an honest, loyal, family man. He spoke of the 'project' he was involved in at Burnley. And, ridiculously, he said a few days prior to his move that he was focused on his job at Burnley.
One Owen Coyle quote that really stands out for me is this: "As soon as a player mentions money my interest in them has gone. What kind of man would I be if I sold this club to a young player when signing him, offering him the chance to progress into a Premier League-quality footballer, if I jumped ship as soon as a better offer came along?". I'd like to put that question to Owen Coyle now, if he is ever good enough to discuss the way in which he has handled this situation without going through his faithful stooge, Mirror journalist Alan Nixon. What kind of man do I think it makes him? A lying man. A fraud. A hypocrite.
Owen Coyle gave Burnley supporters some of the best times in leaving memory. And we loved him for it. But to leave in this manner, at this time, for this destination, after all that he had said, is nothing short of betrayal. If he is moving to Bolton to prolong his Premiership career, as some have claimed, then he is a quitter, a man who did not trust his own ability to finish what he had started and keep Burnley in the big time. And if he left for the money, then he is a liar and a hypocrite, dumping on Burnley from a great height at a crucial time.
What is certain is that the supporters won't forgive. Most of us will now look out for Bolton results in the hope that Coyle makes a fool of himself. Burnley surviving at the end of the season would mean that little bit more if it meant we consigned Coyle and his new side to the Championship. Some Burnley fans have already started labelling him 'Judas'. I personally think this is unfair. Judas at least waited until Easter to take his thirty pieces of silver.
Until now. Owen Coyle is the new manager of Bolton Wanderers, having joined the club this week. Every Burnley fan with a brain knew that he would one day move on to bigger and better things, his ability certainly deserves it. We didn't think for a minute that he would stay at Burnley for years to come. Clearly an ambitious man, Coyle is capable of managing at a much higher level. But the manner of his departure leaves a bitter taste in the mouth, and has lead to the freefall of Coyle's reputation amongst fans that used to idolise him and, dare I say, football fans in general. Burnley supporters could have accepted him moving upwards, to an Everton or Aston Villa for example, but the sideways move he has made to join Bolton Wanderers is stunning. Bolton, in spite of their greater funds, are two points below Burnley in the Premiership table and play a horrendous brand of football that Coyle will have his work cut out to change. They are in huge debt, and have unloyal supporters who, as was proved with the unfortunate Gary Megson, will turn on their manager at the first opportunity. Nobody other than Bolton fans, and apparently Owen Coyle, believes this is a good move for a manager with such talent and reputation. I do not buy the idea that Coyle is a Bolton man through-and-through. He played for the club for two seasons, not even as a first team regular, in a career that saw him play for many clubs. He was in a win-win situation at Burnley. Relegation would not have damaged his reputation, and he could have departed in the summer with our best wishes. If he had masterminded a survival, he would have had his name etched into BFC folklore even more than it had been already, and his reputation would have been increased tenfold. At Bolton, he must keep them up. It is as simple as that. Relegation would deal a tremendous blow to his reputation.
The timing of the move is another issue. To leave the club at the start of the January transfer window- a crucial time for any club, particularly one looking for reinforcements to help stave off the threat of relegation- is cruel, and extremely damaging. Best-laid plans will have to be re-thought, and the new manager, whoever he will be, will have very little time to get to grips with the current squad and add to it. And to leave for a relegation rival, a club in direct competition, doubles the blow. Coyle has, on the face of it, boosted Bolton's season, while at the same time potentially crippling Burnley's. That is inexcusable.
But more than anything, what niggles at Burnley the fans the most is that we never expected this of Owen 'God' Coyle. Coyle was a man who appeared to buy into the history of the club. He built a rapport with the fans. He railed against footballers motivated by money. He described himself as an honest, loyal, family man. He spoke of the 'project' he was involved in at Burnley. And, ridiculously, he said a few days prior to his move that he was focused on his job at Burnley.
One Owen Coyle quote that really stands out for me is this: "As soon as a player mentions money my interest in them has gone. What kind of man would I be if I sold this club to a young player when signing him, offering him the chance to progress into a Premier League-quality footballer, if I jumped ship as soon as a better offer came along?". I'd like to put that question to Owen Coyle now, if he is ever good enough to discuss the way in which he has handled this situation without going through his faithful stooge, Mirror journalist Alan Nixon. What kind of man do I think it makes him? A lying man. A fraud. A hypocrite.
Owen Coyle gave Burnley supporters some of the best times in leaving memory. And we loved him for it. But to leave in this manner, at this time, for this destination, after all that he had said, is nothing short of betrayal. If he is moving to Bolton to prolong his Premiership career, as some have claimed, then he is a quitter, a man who did not trust his own ability to finish what he had started and keep Burnley in the big time. And if he left for the money, then he is a liar and a hypocrite, dumping on Burnley from a great height at a crucial time.
What is certain is that the supporters won't forgive. Most of us will now look out for Bolton results in the hope that Coyle makes a fool of himself. Burnley surviving at the end of the season would mean that little bit more if it meant we consigned Coyle and his new side to the Championship. Some Burnley fans have already started labelling him 'Judas'. I personally think this is unfair. Judas at least waited until Easter to take his thirty pieces of silver.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
More airbrushing, David?
How embarrassing for David Cameron! His ugly mug needs some airbrushing to make him look presentable for the British public. What's next? A wig to hide his receding hairline?
I find it strange how everybody seems to have picked up on the fact that Cameron's face has been airbrushed, everybody seems to have missed the fact that for years he and his party have been airbrushing their policies, to hide how muddled and reactionary they actually are
I find it strange how everybody seems to have picked up on the fact that Cameron's face has been airbrushed, everybody seems to have missed the fact that for years he and his party have been airbrushing their policies, to hide how muddled and reactionary they actually are
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Labour shooting itself in the foot (again)
So yet another 'coup' against Gordon Brown appears to be underway. What is the point? This one was destined to fail, due in part that the ministerial careers of Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon are over due to their own failings, and in part to the fact that nobody in the Labour Party really thinks this is the right time for such a ballot.
Lo and behold, the people that actually matter within this government have backed Brown. He's not an ideal leader, and he will most likely lead the party into an electoral defeat. It is my view that a hung parliament is the best that he, and indeed the rest of us that fear the effects of a Cameron government, can hope for. This latest challenge to his leadership, feeble as it was, only confirms the public's negative opinions of the party, and hinders Brown as he attempts to claw back at the Conservative Party's lead in the polls. Is it sabotage from Hewitt and Hoon? Perhaps, only they will know. It is certainly stupid. Regardless of differences of opinion and squabbles over leadership, now is the time for the party to shut up and give as good an account of itself as possible in the election. Otherwise, it is doomed, and who knows what damage a reactionary and inexperienced Tory government will do.
Lo and behold, the people that actually matter within this government have backed Brown. He's not an ideal leader, and he will most likely lead the party into an electoral defeat. It is my view that a hung parliament is the best that he, and indeed the rest of us that fear the effects of a Cameron government, can hope for. This latest challenge to his leadership, feeble as it was, only confirms the public's negative opinions of the party, and hinders Brown as he attempts to claw back at the Conservative Party's lead in the polls. Is it sabotage from Hewitt and Hoon? Perhaps, only they will know. It is certainly stupid. Regardless of differences of opinion and squabbles over leadership, now is the time for the party to shut up and give as good an account of itself as possible in the election. Otherwise, it is doomed, and who knows what damage a reactionary and inexperienced Tory government will do.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Mud-slinging over Iraq
Predictably, the Chilcot inquiry has descended into a farcical escapade where everybody blames everybody else for the disaster that was the war in Iraq. Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Viggers has called the people running the war 'amateurs', appparently oblivious to the fact that he was, erm, one of them. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the planning for the war was very poor, and though the responsibility for this must ultimately rest at the very top, people lower down the pecking order must take a portion of the blame. They did not question what was happening, and engaged in their task with gusto.
Even John Prescott is breaking ranks, wondering how he went along with it in the first place. A pervasive 'Blame Blair' atmosphere has even affected the former Deputy PM, it seems. In implicitly suggesting that he was conned, noting the attorney general being 'troubled' (note that Lord Goldsmith kept his opposition to himself) and distancing himself from Blair, Prescott tries to lay the blame for the war elsewhere. Tony Blair must indeed take a huge amount of responsibility (and I pray for the day that will surely never come where he and George Bush are up before a war crimes tribunal), but other people were culpable too. Prescott, in the position he held at the time, certainly was, and so too was the attorney general. But it goes beyond even that. Parliament voted for the war, afterall, even though many MPs are doing their best to convince us otherwise. And the fiasco that the occupation has turned into must be due in part to errors within the leadership of the armed forces.
Plenty of people are to blame. And though I welcome the inquiry, I just wish it could actually achieve something genuine and worthwhile in the future rather than degenerate into chorus of "Not me, guv!" from people to whom we have entrusted British and Iraqi lives.
Even John Prescott is breaking ranks, wondering how he went along with it in the first place. A pervasive 'Blame Blair' atmosphere has even affected the former Deputy PM, it seems. In implicitly suggesting that he was conned, noting the attorney general being 'troubled' (note that Lord Goldsmith kept his opposition to himself) and distancing himself from Blair, Prescott tries to lay the blame for the war elsewhere. Tony Blair must indeed take a huge amount of responsibility (and I pray for the day that will surely never come where he and George Bush are up before a war crimes tribunal), but other people were culpable too. Prescott, in the position he held at the time, certainly was, and so too was the attorney general. But it goes beyond even that. Parliament voted for the war, afterall, even though many MPs are doing their best to convince us otherwise. And the fiasco that the occupation has turned into must be due in part to errors within the leadership of the armed forces.
Plenty of people are to blame. And though I welcome the inquiry, I just wish it could actually achieve something genuine and worthwhile in the future rather than degenerate into chorus of "Not me, guv!" from people to whom we have entrusted British and Iraqi lives.
Monday, 30 November 2009
Tory Bloggers
An illuminating discussion with the Mirror’s Kevin Maguire last week, during which he referred to how the blogging world has become dominated by right-wingers. He attributed this to the fact that the internet in general, and the act of blogging in particular, has grown-up at a time when a supposedly left-wing Labour government is in power. Hence the opportunity offered by the internet as a means of expressing opposition has been used mainly by the Conservatives and other right-wing parties. The likes of Iain Dale and Paul Staines (ak.a. Guido Fawkes) have used the internet to great effect, and left-wing bloggers have remained incapable of catching up.
Fair enough, perhaps Labour activists have before now not deemed the avenues of the new media important to them, given that they have been in power for 12 years. Now, with the party in disarray and a Conservative government seemingly inevitable, a demoralised left-wing doesn’t seem to have the energy to establish a powerful online presence of its own. Labour List was controversial from the off, due to the Damian McBride scandal, and is fairly poor anyway. Liberal Conspiracy has its plus points, but any real influence has eluded it so far. The right-wing continues to dominate the online debate, both in terms of the size of its online presence and the quality of its platforms.
Twitter is one site that appears to have retained a liberal nature. Yet it remains weak in terms of influence. Much has been made of Labour’s Twitter tsar Kerry McCarthy, but how great can her influence be when she only has 3,570 followers? It seems the left has really missed the boat on this one. For what use is a progressive, modern tool like the internet when it is only utilised to its full effect by parties who have historically been opposed to such progress?
Fair enough, perhaps Labour activists have before now not deemed the avenues of the new media important to them, given that they have been in power for 12 years. Now, with the party in disarray and a Conservative government seemingly inevitable, a demoralised left-wing doesn’t seem to have the energy to establish a powerful online presence of its own. Labour List was controversial from the off, due to the Damian McBride scandal, and is fairly poor anyway. Liberal Conspiracy has its plus points, but any real influence has eluded it so far. The right-wing continues to dominate the online debate, both in terms of the size of its online presence and the quality of its platforms.
Twitter is one site that appears to have retained a liberal nature. Yet it remains weak in terms of influence. Much has been made of Labour’s Twitter tsar Kerry McCarthy, but how great can her influence be when she only has 3,570 followers? It seems the left has really missed the boat on this one. For what use is a progressive, modern tool like the internet when it is only utilised to its full effect by parties who have historically been opposed to such progress?
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Obama, China and the Internet
It will be a long time before the people of China have democracy, but how long will it be before they can gain uncensored access to at least a small bit of it, the internet. Some form of dissent on the internet does take place, but nowhere near enough. And it is good news to see that Barack Obama has called on the Chinese government to put this right.
Obama hasn't been the amazing success most progressives wanted and expected him to be, and this could possibly be another example of talk rather than action from a president who still has much to prove. But these words at least chime with Obama's own actions at home, where he has used the internet to go straight to the voters. He has been able, in this way, to set a context and frame an argument without having to go through journalists. By talking straight to the people, Obama has been able to ditch the soundbites that characterised the New Labour spin operation and swing public opinion before he goes to Congress.
The other great strength of the internet is that it allows people to hear primary sources for themselves, meaning it is harder for politicians or even the media to distort the facts. I just hope that one day the people of China will be able to experience the full benefit of this.
Obama hasn't been the amazing success most progressives wanted and expected him to be, and this could possibly be another example of talk rather than action from a president who still has much to prove. But these words at least chime with Obama's own actions at home, where he has used the internet to go straight to the voters. He has been able, in this way, to set a context and frame an argument without having to go through journalists. By talking straight to the people, Obama has been able to ditch the soundbites that characterised the New Labour spin operation and swing public opinion before he goes to Congress.
The other great strength of the internet is that it allows people to hear primary sources for themselves, meaning it is harder for politicians or even the media to distort the facts. I just hope that one day the people of China will be able to experience the full benefit of this.
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Trial by Fury?
Yet another esteemed commentator has jumped on the bandwagon of condemning the ability of the internet to whip up feelings amongst the general public about one topic or another. Dominic Sandbrook, an historian who I greatly admire, has used his column in the New Statesman to speak out against the opportunities offered by the internet for ‘trial by fury’.
He suggests that blogs and Twitter are the new purveyors of ‘mob violence’, and complains of the difficulties in distinguishing between spontaneity and co-ordination through this medium. Admitting that many people would have been offended by Jan Moir and her thoughts on the death of Stephen Gately- the stock example for many at the moment, it seems- he asks the question: “But how many read her column only after they had heard about it on Twitter, and how many complained only after they had read the Guardian’s Charlie Brooker?”
So what? If the internet allows social networking sites and commentators to highlight ignorance and prejudice and quash it, then I for one am pleased. I have gone into this before, and do not intend to again. Sandbrook, Cohen et al should give the public some credit, and allow them to make up their own minds, rather than demonise the circulation of news and opinions on the internet as a chance for troublemakers to whip up a stir about irrelevant things. In aiding the spread of information and opinions, and offering people the chance to make up their own mind, the internet is a valuable democratic asset. It is tenuous at best to compare it to the ‘blood-hungry mob of ancient Rome’. Calm down, man.
He suggests that blogs and Twitter are the new purveyors of ‘mob violence’, and complains of the difficulties in distinguishing between spontaneity and co-ordination through this medium. Admitting that many people would have been offended by Jan Moir and her thoughts on the death of Stephen Gately- the stock example for many at the moment, it seems- he asks the question: “But how many read her column only after they had heard about it on Twitter, and how many complained only after they had read the Guardian’s Charlie Brooker?”
So what? If the internet allows social networking sites and commentators to highlight ignorance and prejudice and quash it, then I for one am pleased. I have gone into this before, and do not intend to again. Sandbrook, Cohen et al should give the public some credit, and allow them to make up their own minds, rather than demonise the circulation of news and opinions on the internet as a chance for troublemakers to whip up a stir about irrelevant things. In aiding the spread of information and opinions, and offering people the chance to make up their own mind, the internet is a valuable democratic asset. It is tenuous at best to compare it to the ‘blood-hungry mob of ancient Rome’. Calm down, man.
Saturday, 14 November 2009
The case for 100% Inheritance Tax
Taxation has been, and will continue to be, a major topic of discussion for politicians and commentators in the wake of the worst financial crisis since the Wall Street Crash of 1929. With a huge budget deficit and a general election looming, the case for increased taxation will be debated by the two major parties until all of us listening shrivel and die of boredom. Yet, in spite of this, one of the most serious issues that faces this country, inequality, and the one method of taxation that could make a real dent in the deficit while causing no harm whatsoever to the person that earned the money, the inheritance tax, remain inexplicably neglected.
Well, not so inexplicably, as it happens. Inheritance tax is not a vote winner, and the self-serving politicians of today, just like the self-serving politicians of yesterday, are far more concerned with prolonging their own political careers than tackling in earnest the problems facing this country. This applies to this Labour government in particular, under whose watch the inequality gap has widened further than even Margaret Thatcher could have imagined and the taxing of estates has declined. In 1997, when Tony Blair’s brave new era began, the inheritance tax threshold was £215,000. It is now £325,000. The inheriting of money, however much or little, has become one of the major causes of economic and social inequality in this country.
This idea is undoubtedly radical. It would also undoubtedly be seen as an assault on the rich. This is why my proposal is that this tax would apply to all, regardless of the size of their estate. The idea that a person’s incentive to work would be diminished by the fact that they would not be able to pass their accumulated wealth on to their children is, in my view, untrue. The incentive would still be there- to do the best you can for yourself and your family while you are still alive. The 100% tax rate on the estates of deceased citizens would merely be a method of levelling the playing field. No more would unskilled or lazy people be able to stay ahead of the more deserving and capable simply as a result of their inherited wealth and status. A person’s incentive to work would be increased: with the ability to fall back on inheritance removed, one would have to work harder to succeed. Government’s role, in my eyes, is much like that of a ruling body for sporting competition: to set the rules of the game and make sure that nobody manages a head start due to artificial means. A 100% tax on inheritance would go a long way in denying anybody an unfair advantage, resulting in a fairer, more equal and meritocratic society.
The benefits to the Government would be immense. With less incentive to save, people would spend more, thus reigniting a stagnated economy. Revenues would be significant, and allow for large scale investment in public services as well as, yes, cutting the budget. Clearly safeguards would have to be put in place to ensure that this money was used for such positive ends, rather than unwinnable wars and lining the pockets of our elected representatives. The public would not stand for anything else. The move is unlikely to be popular- nothing regarding increased taxation ever is- but it would be easier to implement and provide more of an incentive to work than increasing income tax would. To put it crudely, it is an awful lot easier to prise tax dues from the fingers of the dead. It is also easier to enforce, with rigid rules regarding the ‘unloading’ of wealth as a person’s death appears imminent.
This appeal will almost certainly fall on deaf ears. But current taxation methods are not satisfactory. The 40% rate of taxation of estates worth £325,000 and over is not enough. A brave move on inheritance tax goes some way to realigning our divided society while providing much-needed revenue to a Government brought to its knees by economic mismanagement. It’s a pity none of our political leaders, primarily drawn from the middle and upper classes, have the gumption to do it.
Well, not so inexplicably, as it happens. Inheritance tax is not a vote winner, and the self-serving politicians of today, just like the self-serving politicians of yesterday, are far more concerned with prolonging their own political careers than tackling in earnest the problems facing this country. This applies to this Labour government in particular, under whose watch the inequality gap has widened further than even Margaret Thatcher could have imagined and the taxing of estates has declined. In 1997, when Tony Blair’s brave new era began, the inheritance tax threshold was £215,000. It is now £325,000. The inheriting of money, however much or little, has become one of the major causes of economic and social inequality in this country.
This idea is undoubtedly radical. It would also undoubtedly be seen as an assault on the rich. This is why my proposal is that this tax would apply to all, regardless of the size of their estate. The idea that a person’s incentive to work would be diminished by the fact that they would not be able to pass their accumulated wealth on to their children is, in my view, untrue. The incentive would still be there- to do the best you can for yourself and your family while you are still alive. The 100% tax rate on the estates of deceased citizens would merely be a method of levelling the playing field. No more would unskilled or lazy people be able to stay ahead of the more deserving and capable simply as a result of their inherited wealth and status. A person’s incentive to work would be increased: with the ability to fall back on inheritance removed, one would have to work harder to succeed. Government’s role, in my eyes, is much like that of a ruling body for sporting competition: to set the rules of the game and make sure that nobody manages a head start due to artificial means. A 100% tax on inheritance would go a long way in denying anybody an unfair advantage, resulting in a fairer, more equal and meritocratic society.
The benefits to the Government would be immense. With less incentive to save, people would spend more, thus reigniting a stagnated economy. Revenues would be significant, and allow for large scale investment in public services as well as, yes, cutting the budget. Clearly safeguards would have to be put in place to ensure that this money was used for such positive ends, rather than unwinnable wars and lining the pockets of our elected representatives. The public would not stand for anything else. The move is unlikely to be popular- nothing regarding increased taxation ever is- but it would be easier to implement and provide more of an incentive to work than increasing income tax would. To put it crudely, it is an awful lot easier to prise tax dues from the fingers of the dead. It is also easier to enforce, with rigid rules regarding the ‘unloading’ of wealth as a person’s death appears imminent.
This appeal will almost certainly fall on deaf ears. But current taxation methods are not satisfactory. The 40% rate of taxation of estates worth £325,000 and over is not enough. A brave move on inheritance tax goes some way to realigning our divided society while providing much-needed revenue to a Government brought to its knees by economic mismanagement. It’s a pity none of our political leaders, primarily drawn from the middle and upper classes, have the gumption to do it.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
I Don't Like Nick Cohen
I stumbled across Nick Cohen well before I even started to pretend being interested in columnists and the like, after i reading his cynical and miserable view of the state of left-wing politics. I thoroughly recommend for you not to buy it here, though I note that it is available at the slightly more realistic price of 35p. Having managed to avoid any kind of comment of his for a couple of years, I was unfortunate enough to stumble across one of his latest offerings the other day.
Cohen has managed to come to the conclusion that the opportunity offered by the internet to protest and express dissatisfaction is, somehow, bad. I agree with his initial thoughts on the taking of offence. I remember once hearing an obscure comedian remark (his name escapes me): "So what if you're offended? Nothing happens". People that actively choose to take offence are, again I agree, infuriating and wholly pointless. But if Cohen genuinely cannot see why people might be offended by Andrew Neil's reference to Diane Abbot as a chocolate HobNob or Jan Moir's hateful comments regarding Stephen Gately, then he is clearly missing the point. Cohen may not be black or homosexual, in fact I'm pretty sure he's neither, but plenty of people are, and may well have, believe it or not, taken offence at remarks such as those from Neil or Moir.
Cohen recognises some of the positive aspects of the internet, but the suggestion that protesting through the internet could impede free speech is erroneous. Neil and Moir, along with countless others, had their right to speak, and then the rest of us had our chance to respond. That opportunity was provided by the internet. Cohen claims that "a mob fighting a good cause is still a mob". Fair enough, but so what? So what if the internet has made it easier to protest and raise complaints? People with lives to be getting on with, by which I mean those who have jobs other than sitting at a computer and blogging about whatever takes their fancy, have too much time on their hands to express their views about something that they are offended by (Apologies, the heinous phrase again!). If the internet lets these people express their views- and remember, those views can be positive as well as negative- then it gets my vote every day.
Now, I'm off to resume my retirement from anything written, uttered or farted by Nick Cohen.
Cohen has managed to come to the conclusion that the opportunity offered by the internet to protest and express dissatisfaction is, somehow, bad. I agree with his initial thoughts on the taking of offence. I remember once hearing an obscure comedian remark (his name escapes me): "So what if you're offended? Nothing happens". People that actively choose to take offence are, again I agree, infuriating and wholly pointless. But if Cohen genuinely cannot see why people might be offended by Andrew Neil's reference to Diane Abbot as a chocolate HobNob or Jan Moir's hateful comments regarding Stephen Gately, then he is clearly missing the point. Cohen may not be black or homosexual, in fact I'm pretty sure he's neither, but plenty of people are, and may well have, believe it or not, taken offence at remarks such as those from Neil or Moir.
Cohen recognises some of the positive aspects of the internet, but the suggestion that protesting through the internet could impede free speech is erroneous. Neil and Moir, along with countless others, had their right to speak, and then the rest of us had our chance to respond. That opportunity was provided by the internet. Cohen claims that "a mob fighting a good cause is still a mob". Fair enough, but so what? So what if the internet has made it easier to protest and raise complaints? People with lives to be getting on with, by which I mean those who have jobs other than sitting at a computer and blogging about whatever takes their fancy, have too much time on their hands to express their views about something that they are offended by (Apologies, the heinous phrase again!). If the internet lets these people express their views- and remember, those views can be positive as well as negative- then it gets my vote every day.
Now, I'm off to resume my retirement from anything written, uttered or farted by Nick Cohen.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Stay Away, Blair
Lots of people have plenty to say about the prospective EU Presidency of Tony Blair, the one-time golden boy of British politics (c. 1997) turned villain of the piece. That is, everyone but Blair himself. The warmongerer remains noticeably quiet while the rest of the continent whips itself up into a frenzy (well, almost) over the prospect of the former prime minister straddling Europe.
Gordon Brown is ready to back his old colleague, and David Miliband has been particularly vocal today in stressing the positives of 'President Blair', should such a thing come to pass. The idea that Blair would not be a divisive choice, however, is frankly absurd. Blair's war in Iraq has certainly divided Europe, and his campaign now hangs on whether or not he can obtain the support of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, with Merkel in particular believed to be doubtful over the sense of the appointment. These two leaders have the power to make or break Blair's chances of obtaining the position.
The prospective role for the former prime minister has also proved divisive domestically, with Conservative opposition well-known. Even within the Labour Party itself the idea of Blair returning to full-scale public life in this way has provoked some disquiet. Charles Clarke's opposition was perhaps predictable, but there are undoubtedly serious doubts amongst backbenchers over whether or not this appointment makes sense. The very name 'Blair' provokes a plethora of reactions in this country now, and it is unlikely that his face returning to television screens and his voice to debates on policy would be any different.
Nile Gardner's blog on why Blair should not become President is incoherent and comes at the issue from an angle of staunch Euro-skepticism, something which I am not prepared to indulge in here. But I do find myself in agreement with the right-wing press, even the Daily Mail, in thinking that a Blair presidency would be too contentious and divisive for the man himself to ever be able to make a decent fist of his new job. Europe needs a less controversial figure with a lower profile. In any case, with Merkel and Sarkozy meeting to potentially jetison his hopes, and Blair not doing himself any favours by remaining quiet on the issue, the possibility might not even threaten to become a reality.
Gordon Brown is ready to back his old colleague, and David Miliband has been particularly vocal today in stressing the positives of 'President Blair', should such a thing come to pass. The idea that Blair would not be a divisive choice, however, is frankly absurd. Blair's war in Iraq has certainly divided Europe, and his campaign now hangs on whether or not he can obtain the support of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, with Merkel in particular believed to be doubtful over the sense of the appointment. These two leaders have the power to make or break Blair's chances of obtaining the position.
The prospective role for the former prime minister has also proved divisive domestically, with Conservative opposition well-known. Even within the Labour Party itself the idea of Blair returning to full-scale public life in this way has provoked some disquiet. Charles Clarke's opposition was perhaps predictable, but there are undoubtedly serious doubts amongst backbenchers over whether or not this appointment makes sense. The very name 'Blair' provokes a plethora of reactions in this country now, and it is unlikely that his face returning to television screens and his voice to debates on policy would be any different.
Nile Gardner's blog on why Blair should not become President is incoherent and comes at the issue from an angle of staunch Euro-skepticism, something which I am not prepared to indulge in here. But I do find myself in agreement with the right-wing press, even the Daily Mail, in thinking that a Blair presidency would be too contentious and divisive for the man himself to ever be able to make a decent fist of his new job. Europe needs a less controversial figure with a lower profile. In any case, with Merkel and Sarkozy meeting to potentially jetison his hopes, and Blair not doing himself any favours by remaining quiet on the issue, the possibility might not even threaten to become a reality.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Jan Moir and the wonders of the internet
The 'Jan Moir' incident of last week was a perfect example of everything that is wrong and right about the importance of the internet in modern journalism. Her article appeared in Friday's Daily Mail, but it was the internet and the reaction of people using the internet that gave it a substantially greater audience than if it had remained an anonymous item written by a fairly anonymous journalist buried somewhere in the paper. Instead it was read and passed on numerous times, both my bloggers and tweeters, until it had become a one-day internet phenomenon.
So why is this bad? Well, clearly there are some people out there who share Moir's ridiculous views, and who read the piece with relish. There would have been others who had not really thought about the subject in any great detail or within the larger context and found themselves convinced by her one-sided arguments. The possibilities of the internet are endless when it comes to propagating views that would, without it, not achieve anywhere near as big an audience as Moir was able to achieve without even really trying. So difficult is it to police the internet in the way that Ofcom and the Press Complaints Commission do with broadcast and print respectively, that undesirable views can find an arena in which they can go unchecked. The internet is the domain where the racist, homophobic and fundamentalist can spread whatever evil they desire without facing much condemnation from a higher authority.
Except this isn't totally true. For the other side of the coin is that though the internet allows henious positions such as Moir's a platform from which they can be vocalised, it also allows such positions to be tackled, in a variety of ways from a variety of different angles. There is no 'higher authority' than public opinion, and as a bastion of free speech the web allows public opinion to be expressed vehemently. Moir was immediately subjected to immediate condemnation, on other news websites, in numerous blogs and in thousands of tweets. Though bloggers and tweeters allowed Moir's crude rubbish to reach people it could never have dreamed off had it merely been published in a newspaper, these same people were able to react more quickly and more forcefully to the article than had they been forced to wait until the newspapers the next day. The vast majority of those in the blogosphere would never have had a chance to challenge Moir without access to the internet and the opportunities it opens up. Thus Penny Red was able to hit back at Moir in much the same way Charlie Brooker was.
As a supporter of free speech, I feel the online response to Moir's piece vindicates me. She was given a platform to exhibit wild homophobia, yes, but the same platform then enabled her to be shot down in a much more effective way. The reaction has been one of widespread condemnation, with the PCC receiving more complaints in one weekend than it ever had previously. In a perfect world Jan Moir would not feel the need to ramble so outrageously and falsely in such a way. But she was able to, and her remarks become widely known very quickly due to the internet. But this same tool allowed her to be quickly challenged by a chorus of angry voices, and it is my view that the fact that the internet allows this to happen makes up for the sad fact that people like Moir find it easier to disperse their rubbish in the first place.
So why is this bad? Well, clearly there are some people out there who share Moir's ridiculous views, and who read the piece with relish. There would have been others who had not really thought about the subject in any great detail or within the larger context and found themselves convinced by her one-sided arguments. The possibilities of the internet are endless when it comes to propagating views that would, without it, not achieve anywhere near as big an audience as Moir was able to achieve without even really trying. So difficult is it to police the internet in the way that Ofcom and the Press Complaints Commission do with broadcast and print respectively, that undesirable views can find an arena in which they can go unchecked. The internet is the domain where the racist, homophobic and fundamentalist can spread whatever evil they desire without facing much condemnation from a higher authority.
Except this isn't totally true. For the other side of the coin is that though the internet allows henious positions such as Moir's a platform from which they can be vocalised, it also allows such positions to be tackled, in a variety of ways from a variety of different angles. There is no 'higher authority' than public opinion, and as a bastion of free speech the web allows public opinion to be expressed vehemently. Moir was immediately subjected to immediate condemnation, on other news websites, in numerous blogs and in thousands of tweets. Though bloggers and tweeters allowed Moir's crude rubbish to reach people it could never have dreamed off had it merely been published in a newspaper, these same people were able to react more quickly and more forcefully to the article than had they been forced to wait until the newspapers the next day. The vast majority of those in the blogosphere would never have had a chance to challenge Moir without access to the internet and the opportunities it opens up. Thus Penny Red was able to hit back at Moir in much the same way Charlie Brooker was.
As a supporter of free speech, I feel the online response to Moir's piece vindicates me. She was given a platform to exhibit wild homophobia, yes, but the same platform then enabled her to be shot down in a much more effective way. The reaction has been one of widespread condemnation, with the PCC receiving more complaints in one weekend than it ever had previously. In a perfect world Jan Moir would not feel the need to ramble so outrageously and falsely in such a way. But she was able to, and her remarks become widely known very quickly due to the internet. But this same tool allowed her to be quickly challenged by a chorus of angry voices, and it is my view that the fact that the internet allows this to happen makes up for the sad fact that people like Moir find it easier to disperse their rubbish in the first place.
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Fall on your sword, Georgie Boy
Oops! A fairly major error from George Osborne, who seems absolutely determined to prove that he is completely incapable of being even shadow chancellor, yet alone the real thing. It's high time the Tories dispensed with this fool. Maybe he should do the sensible thing and step aside. Afterall, he is in line to get a fairly important job.
Will this latest gaff halt Cameron's long march to Number 10? Doubtful, the press are so loved-up with the Conservatives and the public so sick of Brown and his sellout party that even repeated displays of incompetence won't be enough to stop Osborne from being elected to incompetently 'serve' his country next Spring.
Will this latest gaff halt Cameron's long march to Number 10? Doubtful, the press are so loved-up with the Conservatives and the public so sick of Brown and his sellout party that even repeated displays of incompetence won't be enough to stop Osborne from being elected to incompetently 'serve' his country next Spring.
Sunday, 4 October 2009
Government-in-waiting?
Excellent coverage in the IoS today of the build-up to this week's Conservative party coverage. Highlighting the divisions within the party, the variations in David Cameron's thinking and the darker side of the 'decontaminated' Tories, the paper does a real service to the voters in Britain by breaking with the norm and writing critically of Cameron and his party.
The conference will be important, as whether or not the party can remain united in the face of the eternal 'Europe question' will determine the future of the party in the next few months. A Tory pie-fight in Brighton is surely too much to ask for, but we can always hope. I just hope the IoS has now raised the bar for press coverage of the Conservatives, as the British public need to know a lot more about the backgrounds, motivations and, above all, policies of the people that currently look most likely to form our next government.
The conference will be important, as whether or not the party can remain united in the face of the eternal 'Europe question' will determine the future of the party in the next few months. A Tory pie-fight in Brighton is surely too much to ask for, but we can always hope. I just hope the IoS has now raised the bar for press coverage of the Conservatives, as the British public need to know a lot more about the backgrounds, motivations and, above all, policies of the people that currently look most likely to form our next government.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Sorry to keep banging on about this...
... but this is getting silly now. Fair point from Livingstone. And surely Boris has more important things to be doing?
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Murdoch at it again
Most people of a political persuasion will remember, or at least be aware of, the 1992 claim that it was the Sun 'what won' the 1992 election for John Major's Conservative Party. The campaign against Neil Kinnock is as infamous as it was vindictive, though I have my doubts whether or not a newspaper, even one with such a huge circulation, could play such a huge part in winning a particular election.
1997 saw the Sun Rupert Murdoch has always been a clever man, and a brilliant throw its support behind Tony Blair and his New Labour project, the very project that it today ditched in favour of cuddly Cameron and his 'new' Tory party. Do not be fooled, however. Rupert Murdoch is an extraordinarily clever businessman. Switching support between the two major parties is not a case of genuine national interest from Murdoch and his paper, but rather a cynical attempt to get onside with the party he feels will form the next government. He did it with Labour, and was rewarded with unparallelled influence in Downing Street over the next twelve years as his business escapades, questionable in terms of press ownership, went largely untouched by Blair and then Brown.
This new change of policy is no different. The coverage in today's paper was crude and self-serving. But it worked. Brown is on the backfoot after a decent display at the party conference. The Tories are jubilant. Sales of the paper went through the roof. But nobody will be able to claim come May, or whenever the next election is, that it was the Sun 'what won it'. Today's move was purely cynical. Murdoch and his cronies do not shape public opinion, they follow it in the hope of establishing the Murdoch empire with the next administration so that his ventures can continue to go unchecked. Part of me hopes for a Labour victory in the spring, if only so that this odious man's influence on British politics and the media worldwide can be debated and criticised at a higher level in a way that has not happened as yet. I doubt that will happen, and it is my bet that the Sun and the greedy opportunists who run it will continue to trumpet their own importance for decades to come.
1997 saw the Sun Rupert Murdoch has always been a clever man, and a brilliant throw its support behind Tony Blair and his New Labour project, the very project that it today ditched in favour of cuddly Cameron and his 'new' Tory party. Do not be fooled, however. Rupert Murdoch is an extraordinarily clever businessman. Switching support between the two major parties is not a case of genuine national interest from Murdoch and his paper, but rather a cynical attempt to get onside with the party he feels will form the next government. He did it with Labour, and was rewarded with unparallelled influence in Downing Street over the next twelve years as his business escapades, questionable in terms of press ownership, went largely untouched by Blair and then Brown.
This new change of policy is no different. The coverage in today's paper was crude and self-serving. But it worked. Brown is on the backfoot after a decent display at the party conference. The Tories are jubilant. Sales of the paper went through the roof. But nobody will be able to claim come May, or whenever the next election is, that it was the Sun 'what won it'. Today's move was purely cynical. Murdoch and his cronies do not shape public opinion, they follow it in the hope of establishing the Murdoch empire with the next administration so that his ventures can continue to go unchecked. Part of me hopes for a Labour victory in the spring, if only so that this odious man's influence on British politics and the media worldwide can be debated and criticised at a higher level in a way that has not happened as yet. I doubt that will happen, and it is my bet that the Sun and the greedy opportunists who run it will continue to trumpet their own importance for decades to come.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
They're at it again!
More outrageous claims of a left-wing bias at the BBC. As I've suggested here before, this claim is a complete fallacy. It's a clever ploy from the right, an attempt to further consolidate their hold over the media. But I wish they'd give it a rest.
They work for you
A valuable tool, one that I have not taken proper advantage so far, is They Work For You, a website that keeps an eye on how exactly your MP is voting in Parliament. It's certainly worth playing with, if only to shatter your illusions about certain politicians.
I've always admired Jon Cruddas, for his principled deputy leadership campaign and his continued pressure from the backbenches for Labour to return to its grassroots. Yet a glance at his voting record is illuminating, with his credentials not as impressive as I thought they would be. Support for the Iraq war and opposition to an investigation into it are dipleasing, as is his strong support for Labour's anti-terrorism laws. His fence-hopping exploits on the climate change front are inexplicable.
On the other hand, the pin-up boy of progressive politics, Vince Cable seems to justify his current popularity with a voting record that would please many on the left. Maybe the Lib Dems, with a figure like Cable leading the policy debate, really are the best of a bad lot at the current time.
I've always admired Jon Cruddas, for his principled deputy leadership campaign and his continued pressure from the backbenches for Labour to return to its grassroots. Yet a glance at his voting record is illuminating, with his credentials not as impressive as I thought they would be. Support for the Iraq war and opposition to an investigation into it are dipleasing, as is his strong support for Labour's anti-terrorism laws. His fence-hopping exploits on the climate change front are inexplicable.
On the other hand, the pin-up boy of progressive politics, Vince Cable seems to justify his current popularity with a voting record that would please many on the left. Maybe the Lib Dems, with a figure like Cable leading the policy debate, really are the best of a bad lot at the current time.
Saturday, 19 September 2009
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Afghanistan
I've always struggled to find a coherent position on the war in Afghanistan. I have swerved between support for it, given the positive goals of tackling terrorism and establishing democracy and human rights in the region, and opposition to it, given the scale of the commitment and the inevitablity of many deaths, both military and civilian.
I have now come to a conclusion, eight years in the making. I oppose the war in Afghanistan for the following reasons.
1. The argument that we are fighting in Afghanistan to make Britain a safer place has lost all its legitimacy. Recent events show that terrorists are just as likely to come from Luton or Walthamstow as they are from the mountainous areas of Afghanistan. Indeed, our presence as 'infadels' is perhaps serving to radicalise people to the point that they consider terrorist action. The fact that neighbouring Pakistan is as much, if not more, responsible for the harbouring of terrorists makes the continued focus solely on Afghanistan nonsensical.
2. Another argument for forcing the Taliban out of power was that it would herald a new era of democracy and human rights in Afghanistan. The puppet President Hamid Karzai has recently passed anti-women laws reminiscient of those of the Taliban, suggesting that the new regime is less focused on bringing Afghanistan into the twenty-first century than previously intimated. The current elections, it is agreed, are unreliable, and Karzai and his people have been accused of corruption. Our government, so vocal in its condemnation of similarly flawed elections in Iran, has until recently stayed quiet. If Karzai and his regime is what we are fighting for, then it seems lives are being needlessly wasted.
3. Public opinion is against the war, and animosity towards it is only increasing. A mere glance at the history of military intervention in Afghanistan, both British and Soviet, demonstrates that victory is neither inevitable or swift.
4. The danger of intervening in sovereign nations to establish democracy is difficult, in that there is then an issue over which country is most 'deserving' of such intervention. If we are in Afghanistan, why not Burma?
For these reasons, I have now decided to set my stall against the war in Afghanistan. I will, therefore, be attending the national demonstration against the war on 24 October, and I suggest you do too.
I have now come to a conclusion, eight years in the making. I oppose the war in Afghanistan for the following reasons.
1. The argument that we are fighting in Afghanistan to make Britain a safer place has lost all its legitimacy. Recent events show that terrorists are just as likely to come from Luton or Walthamstow as they are from the mountainous areas of Afghanistan. Indeed, our presence as 'infadels' is perhaps serving to radicalise people to the point that they consider terrorist action. The fact that neighbouring Pakistan is as much, if not more, responsible for the harbouring of terrorists makes the continued focus solely on Afghanistan nonsensical.
2. Another argument for forcing the Taliban out of power was that it would herald a new era of democracy and human rights in Afghanistan. The puppet President Hamid Karzai has recently passed anti-women laws reminiscient of those of the Taliban, suggesting that the new regime is less focused on bringing Afghanistan into the twenty-first century than previously intimated. The current elections, it is agreed, are unreliable, and Karzai and his people have been accused of corruption. Our government, so vocal in its condemnation of similarly flawed elections in Iran, has until recently stayed quiet. If Karzai and his regime is what we are fighting for, then it seems lives are being needlessly wasted.
3. Public opinion is against the war, and animosity towards it is only increasing. A mere glance at the history of military intervention in Afghanistan, both British and Soviet, demonstrates that victory is neither inevitable or swift.
4. The danger of intervening in sovereign nations to establish democracy is difficult, in that there is then an issue over which country is most 'deserving' of such intervention. If we are in Afghanistan, why not Burma?
For these reasons, I have now decided to set my stall against the war in Afghanistan. I will, therefore, be attending the national demonstration against the war on 24 October, and I suggest you do too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
