Browse > Home / Archive: November 2010

| Subcribe via RSS



Britain’s Trillion Pound Horror Story

By Tom Papworth
November 11th, 2010 at 1:02 pm | 34 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

Britain’s Trillion Pound Horror Story airs tonight at 9pm on Channel 4.

The film explains the full extent of the financial mess this country is in – an estimated £4.8 trillion of national debt and counting. It argues that the recent spending review hasn’t gone far enough, and to put Britain back on track we need to radically rethink the role of the state, stop politicians spending money in our name and drastically lower taxes to make Britain’s economy boom again.

The programme includes interviews with academics, economic experts, entrepreneurs and four ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer.

With its prescient message and offer of a bold solution to get the nation’s finances back on track, we trust you will find it stimulating and informative viewing.

Read more about the size of the debt in A Bankruptcy Foretold 2010: Post-Financial-Crisis Update.

britaine28099s-trillion-pound-horror-story1

'

Raising a glass north of the border

By Angela Harbutt
November 11th, 2010 at 4:07 am | Comments Off on Raising a glass north of the border | Posted in Personal Freedom

With all the news of  “The Seige of Millbank” today… important news north of the border may go unreported…

 Today the Scottish Parliament voted against the SNPs last gasp attempt to introduce minimum pricing of alcohol. In a rare (and much welcomed) show of unity Labour, the Lib Dems and Conservatives stood together in determining that a minimum price was potentially illegal (probably), could lead to cross-border “booze runs” (almost certainly) and would unfairly penalise responsible drinkers (definitely).

MSPs also voted down proposals to stop retailers giving loyalty points for alcohol, and offering discount vouchers or “meal deals” including alcohol. They also rejected proposals to increase the legal age at which alcohol can be bought from shops from 18 to 21 ( probably a wise move given today’s events…..)

A sudden and rare show of sanity? Maybe..or maybe it really was party politics at work?

Either way this is an important win for those of us who are sick and tired of being told what we should and shouldn’t do with our hard earned cash. Too many times, where Scotland has gone, England has followed. 

But it’s not all good news….. On the down-side, Holyrood did support extending a ban on “irresponsible” drinks promotions (to you and I that means banning shops from offering discounted bulk-buying and cheap drinks promotions ).. and a ban on supermarkets advertising alcohol inside or outside their stores.

Perhaps most disappointing, MSP also voted to allow local councils to introduce a new, discretionary “social responsibility” tax on shops in areas “troubled by drunkenness and alcoholism”. This seems to be little more that giving councils a license to tax those selling alcohol (I cannot find anything anywhere right now that explains how they will measure or implement that) . A revenue-raising opportunity for councils if ever there was one?

So a cheer for the fact that the insane plan of the SNP to implement a blanket “minimum price on alcohol” has been overturned. Lets hope that the local councils “social responsibility tax” doesn’t  tax independent shops, off licences and pubs out of existence.

Tags: ,

Watch Channel 4 tonight at 9pm

By Angela Harbutt
November 11th, 2010 at 1:44 am | 1 Comment | Posted in UK Politics

durkinTonight on Channel 4 watch “Britain’s Trillion pound Horror“. I have seen a rough cut and it is truly excellent.

Astonishingly the Mirror seems to endorse this programme (go figure)…

If you were to throw Britain’s national debt out of a window, one £50 note at a time, how long would it take? That’s one of the images ­film maker Martin Durkin employs to help us visualise ­Britain’s ­mind-boggling national debt – ­estimated at £4.8 trillion. The answer, in case you’re wondering, is more than 3,000 years. If you think George Osborne’s cuts will make a shred of ­difference to that, this programme will almost certainly change your mind”

Pass it on. Stay in, or set your recorder, it will be a corker….

Tags: , ,

The politics of control orders

By Andy Mayer
November 10th, 2010 at 12:18 am | Comments Off on The politics of control orders | Posted in Conservatives, Liberal Democrats

Jeremy Browne, perhaps the MP with whom Liberal Vision has most sympathy on many issues, has not had a good week. An appearance on Question Time last week saw him attacked unfairly for an ill-judged attempt to mock arguments against military co-operation with France. The more serious error from the internal party perspective however concerned his attempt to add nuance to the party’s opposition to Control Orders.

Control Orders were introduced by the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. They replaced Part IV of the 2001 Anti-terrorism, crime and security Act that allowed the Home Secretary to detain foreign nationals without trial indefinitely pending deportation. Itself a post 9-11 measure bought into try and sidestep the UK’s obligation not to deport people likely to be subject to torture… and struck down accordingly by Law Lords as incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Control Orders themselves, which are designed to be a ‘prison without bars’, by issuing restrictions to movement and activities on the target, have been subject to numerous similar challenges and are rarely used. They are expensive, costing over £200k per issue, and around £8m in fees relating to the legal challenges. Many Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have opposed them on cost, effectiveness and civil liberties grounds in Parliament.

The Coalition though, facing a decision on whether to use them days into the new government, opted to do so, then put the policy into review with other counter terrorism measures.

In that respect Jeremy’s explanation of the Government’s policy position on QT was correct. Control orders will be reviewed, the government will then decide their future on the basis of discussion and evidence from that review. Cabinet collective responsibility demands Ministers abide by and defend government decisions publicly even when they do not privately agree with them.

The sticky wicket though is that this is that for most liberals this is  fairly fundamental breach of civil liberties not a nuanced issue of the line between “liberty and security” subject to an impact assessment. It is also a decision on a process to take a decision, not a decision.

Does collective responsibility in coalition mean you cannot state your previous party policy before explaining the process to reach a consensus with a party with a different policy? I suspect not, and Chris Huhne took a different line very recently.

On the substance of the issue – the right to fair trial; to know of what it is you are accused, to legal representation, and due process; are all undermined by control orders. This was excused by the previous government under article 15 of the EHCR that permits derogation of other rights on pretext of “war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation”.

In most cases of terrorism outside conventional war a reasonable person would think of this as the ‘ticking bomb scenario‘. An explanation that conjures up images of imminent attack and capture of a suspect who can disclose information vital to stop the plot, and the measures required to extract that information. 

It does not fit so well with restrictions to liberty over a period of many years without recourse to a fair trial. Less preventing a ticking bomb, more preventing someone buying an alarm clock.  Something for which covert surveillance and intelligence is deemed sufficient for all other crimes.

It also does not help that the ‘it saves lives’ line is also used by those in favour of torture as a derogated right of the state, most recently George Bush. Liberals would not typically decide whether waterboarding was right or wrong on the basis of a review of whether it worked.

The other justification by the UK security services is that fair trials for those under control would put sensitive intelligence sources at risk. This is also used to support their (globally) almost unique opposition to the use of intercept evidence in courts.

It is a position open to significant abuse. It also allows the services to cover up errors and malpractice and it might be summarised as a preference for operating under a mandate of “trust us we’re the security services”.

It also means that if the current review uncovers compelling evidence that control orders work, this evidence will be sensitive and not published, lest it compromise security sources. An endorsement of control orders following the review could then be presented as “trust us we’re the Government”.

For liberals this is the problem. Government and their agencies cannot be trusted without question. Fair trials and public scrutiny of ministerial decisions matter and should be defended, robustly.

For Liberal Democrat Ministers in Government, the tension between their liberty to speak up, and security of the coalition agreement will always be difficult. They should not though present themselves as though operating under some kind of control order.

“How liberals argue”

By Julian Harris
November 9th, 2010 at 3:21 pm | 2 Comments | Posted in US Politics

When I appeared as a “witness” on Radio 4’s Moral Maze programme [/self plug], I found Melanie Phillips to be very articulate, persuasive and well-prepared. She may not be the most popular figure around these parts, and I disagreed with some of her angles on the issue in question, but she did earn my respect for her conduct.

However, she’s done herself no favours by linking to this video (below) through the Spectator blog. “Moronic” isn’t the word for this animation. Well, actually, it is. Along with “strawman” and “bang your head against a wall repeatedly”.

I’m no America-basher, but this kind of thing does make our side of the pond look somewhat more attractive. In spite of our “rampant muslim immigration”.  Tsssh. Watch it, but prepare for despair…

Tags: ,