Morning music
The state we are in?
I happened to see the following piece by Will Hutton [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Hutton].
“The UK is trapped in a cycle of political, social and financial turmoil. But there is a way out.
If there is any consensus in our otherwise fractured, toxic national debate it is that we cannot go on like this. Our economy is in crisis, exemplified by an annual £100bn shortfall in public and private investment, which must be lifted decisively for Britain to break out of today’s triple whammy of stagnant growth, productivity and living standards.
Society reels from alarming gaps in the provision of crucial public services and the yawning unfairness in the distribution of income, wealth and opportunity.
Our democracy and state seem incapable of acknowledging the full extent of these deformities, let alone adequately responding to them.
Our international standing has plummeted at a time of geopolitical peril. A transformative response is an imperative.
My new book, This Time No Mistakes: How to Remake Britain, tries to address the origins of this interlinked crisis – and offer a feasible way out. Nothing is immutable. We are agents of our own destiny.
The heart of the problem is a misconception about how capitalism and society work. Capitalism must be managed and regulated to work for the common good, just as society has to be curated to provide fairness and opportunity for all. Crucially, the vitality of the two are interdependent. Capitalism must be organised so it provides economic ladders that every individual can climb while a social contract must offer a floor below which they cannot fall. Britain’s problem is that the Conservative party, in power for all but 13 of the last 45 years, does not accept these truths or interdependencies. Worse, even if it did, neither the dominant culture and practise of our capitalism, nor the structure of our democracy, state and media would have made it easy to fashion the necessary responses.
Conservative ideology has been in thrall to the contrary proposition that markets will self-organise to produce the best economic and social outcomes propelled by individual energy and ambition alone. The British state confers near-continual unfettered power to the Conservatives, and so in their view needs no reform. Yet the reality is that capitalism’s unchecked rollercoaster rhythms create instability, inequity and monopoly and so must be managed and counteracted. Nor can capitalism be relied upon to best organise how firms are governed and ownership responsibilities discharged; how workers are properly trained and paid; or to ensure that fair dealing is the norm between firms and their customers. Of necessity enter the state, much better designed than at present.
The UK has its back against the wall to a degree unparalleled in its peacetime history, facing economic problems more acute than the successive sterling crises of the 20th century or the trade union militancy that prompted the general strike of 1926 or winter of discontent in 1979. The level of our national debt has climbed alarmingly over the past quarter of a century, with no compensating increase in public assets, so that the net worth of the public sector – assets less liabilities – is more dangerously in the red than any other country bar Portugal. Similarly, more than 20 years of imports of goods and services exceeding exports has meant our international debts have climbed by £1.5tn, so that our balance sheet – positive for centuries as a result of empire and as pioneer of the Industrial Revolution – is now dangerously negative. Fifty companies that could have been in the FTSE 100 were sold abroad between 1997 and 2017; we are running out of assets to sell. At the same time almost every metric on the economic and social dashboard – whether social mobility or the number of new companies launching on the London stock market – is flashing amber or red.
Rightwing ideological maxims, initiated by Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and continued by her imitators, have led to a sequence of policy disasters – monetarism, wholesale financial deregulation, austerity and then Brexit. Far from launching a renaissance, Thatcher was the author of pernicious decline. The doctrine is that the private “I” is morally superior to anything public, that the state’s “coercive” proclivities must be reined in to promote a “free” market, that regulation and taxation stifle enterprise, that unless ferociously means-tested and minimalist, welfare creates a huge underclass of undeserving “shirkers”, and that good public services follow from a successful economy rather than being integral to it.
Little of the policy that flows from this jumble of ideology and prejudice has any evidence base. As the totality of the failure has unfolded, so the Conservative party’s unity has fragmented into the blind alleys of libertarianism and the debacle of the Truss government, ongoing phobia about all things European and the temptations of anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, anti-woke populism. It has become an ungovernable federation of cults.
In the 1980s, monetarism did not contain inflation as billed, but rather prompted mass unemployment, hollowed out much of our productive economy – manufacturing employment nearly halved in a decade – and eviscerated public investment. The areas so scarred by the experience would, 30 years later, vote for Brexit. Financial deregulation led to the fastest rise in private indebtedness in our history, propelling illusory economic growth buoyed not by investment and innovation but a flood of credit. It could only end in tears. Writing The State We’re In in the mid-1990s, to warn of an impending tragedy without a change of course, I did not anticipate the great financial crisis of 2007/8, felt most acutely in Britain, although it was obvious the whole rickety structure could only fail in some way. Nor did I imagine that Britain would repeat the failures with the economically illiterate budgetary tightening of austerity and then torch the one successful economic policy asset it had remaining, EU membership, which had boosted GDP by 10%. Yet such was the grip of the right on the Tory party that their bad ideas, once unthinkable, became our lived reality.
And Britain’s liberal left cannot absolve itself of blame. If Conservatism has over-emphasised the “I”, the left has not yet found an electorally attractive way of making the case for “We” – or, better still, blending it with the “I” to create a political philosophy, and attractive policies that flow from it, that would appeal to the majority. My proposition is that the “We” should be built on fusing an ethic of socialism grounded in profound human attachment to fellowship, mutuality and co-operation with the ethic of progressive or new liberalism that emerged 150 years ago as a challenge to classic liberalism. Essentially, liberal thinkers such as Thomas Hill Green and Leonard Hobhouse (forerunners of progressive liberals Keynes and Beveridge) argued that individuals and society were in a constant iterative relationship. Individuals shape society, society shapes individuals, and each and everyone has an obligation to make the social whole as strong as possible, which they are obliged to recognise even while they pursue their own ambitions and interests. Green called this the politics of obligation, which not only the great reforming 1905-15 Liberal government would follow, but later the Keynesian economic revolution and Beveridge’s welfare state.
Labour, as Tony Crosland diagnosed in the 1950s in The Future of Socialism, was founded on being all things leftist to everyone to encourage as big a membership as possible. It was a coalition of Marxists to gradualist Fabians – so laying the foundation for more than 100 years of feuding. Only the ethic of socialism, which has deep roots in western philosophy, the great religions and the Enlightenment, stands the test of time. It was Aristotle who declared that those who deny the primacy of a healthy society to their individual wellbeing are either “a beast or a gods”, while the father of British empiricism, Francis Bacon, would write “wealth is like muck. It is not much good but if it be spread.”
Progressive liberalism and an ethic of socialism are not incompatible value systems: they are complementary. Progressive liberalism leans into the individualism that propels capitalism while accepting social obligations; an ethic of socialism leans into the foundation of a social contract and infrastructure of justice that underpin the sinews of a good society. Ideological socialism’s hostility to capital and liberalism’s association with the upper class and upper middle class initially made a rapprochement between the two impossible. Today those obstacles have faded. It was Tony Blair who saw the opportunity that could be grasped, and perhaps his best contribution to progressive politics was his rewriting of Labour’s infamous high socialist clause IV to articulate the fusion. New Labour may have shrunk from the full implications; it will fall to successors to make it live.
The vision is of a “we society” – a high investment economy populated by companies that take their social responsibilities seriously, underpinned by a rejuvenated social contract in which health, housing, education, justice, welfare and the labour market all combine to offer every individual the chance fully to participate in work, social and civic life. No more lost Einsteins and Marie Curies.
The starting point must be to raise public investment decisively and so “crowd in” private investment radically to lift productivity and real wages (wages adjusted for inflation). Three targets select themselves – the vital need to close the disgraceful gap in productivity, infrastructure and economic performance between London and the regions; the commitment to achieve net zero by 2050 given the alarming rise in global temperatures; and the need to lift research and development spending dramatically. To move the dial in all these areas will require public borrowing for such investment to rise by at least 1% of GDP, or between £25bn– £30bn, with fiscal rules organised around real-world, rather than accounting, goals. The financial markets will be reassured if they know that the investment they are supporting is strategic and thought through. Britain can break out of its low growth trap without financial mishap.
Shibboleths about taxation need to be put to one side. Taxation represents the “we”, and as long as the demands on all sections of society are reasonable – involving at present a greater contribution by the wealthy, whose assets in relation to GDP have doubled since 1980 – there is no evidence that tax receipts at today’s level or even marginally higher will damage growth. What matters is that Britain does what it must to lift its growth rate. A “growth commission” should establish rolling targets for public investment and be held to account to achieving them – the means to vitally needed change.
Importantly, the savings and investment system must be reshaped to drive credit and equity investment to support the financial needs of the companies big and small that we need to feed off the surge in public investment. Two young institutions – the UK Infrastructure Bank and British Business Bank – must be turbocharged so they can operate at the multibillion-pound scale necessary. Banks must be incentivised to supply business loans on much less onerous and flexible terms, and the pension system must be boosted and organised to invest in fast-growing companies based on frontier new technologies. A big multibillion private sector wealth fund – already mooted by some in the City – must work in concert with a public sector wealth fund to invest in what will be the great companies of tomorrow, ensuring they stay British-owned to anchor our economy.
The law needs to ensure that companies make their prime objective the achievement of great social purposes rather than short-term self-enrichment. This should especially apply to all our regulated utilities. The best in British business and our utilities have already begun to move in this direction, putting achievement of great purpose at their heart: it needs to become the general rule. Competition policy must be stepped up so that there is much less incentive and capacity to rig prices in monopoly or quasi monopoly positions. This is particularly important for those businesses and sectors whose business models depend on strength in “intangibles” – intellectual property, human skills, data and digital advantages, research – whose growth has been cramped by so many financial and regulatory biases that favour incumbents. British capitalism, in short, needs to be repurposed both to grow and to work for the common good.
No less essential is to repair the threadbare social contract. The new risks and inequalities that every citizen will confront in an ever faster moving environment, along with new centres of prosperity, need to be mitigated and managed to ensure the new economic world is underwritten by great education, health and housing – and income support when for any reason people find it impossible to work. The workplace needs to be reconfigured so employees are conferred dignity and voice, with trade unions as active partners of purposeful companies. There must be a proper system of social care. We cannot have children going hungry in their millions, with schools, training institutions and further education colleges allowed to decay. And lastly, housing must be restored as a central pillar of the good society. Council tax, the mortgage market, social housing and the system of tenure all require a major overhaul. It would all be integral to a British-style New Deal.
The British state that perforce must catalyse and lead all this must be reformed and recast. It needs the capacity to act strategically, but with far stronger mechanisms for being held accountable for what it does. Parliament must recover its capacity to deliberate and scrutinise along with making law. The reduction of MPs to mere lobby-fodder ciphers to service the transient whims of an unprecedented churn of ministers is surely one reason why nearly 100 this parliament – a record – have been sanctioned for gross lapses in their behaviour. Our second chamber, the Lords, must be democratised. Ethical standards, from conduct in office to political donations, need to be respected and enforced. Boris Johnson’s abuses cannot be allowed again. The independence of the judiciary must be better entrenched. The tone and content of our national conversation, framed by a dominant and frequently hysterically biased rightwing media magnified by social media, needs to be hosed down – a revival in public service broadcasting and regulation of content is a necessity.
Britain has the potential to become an envied European economic and social model. Indeed to re-engage with the European Union is another indispensable part of recovery. The case is not only economic, recovering lost markets, increasing trade intensity, and stimulating falling inward investment that are costing a lost 5% of GDP every year (and growing) but geopolitical. Britain must be “in the room” where the great decisions on Ukraine, defence, security, energy, climate emergency, and the regulatory standards are taken that will configure our continent. Empire and Commonwealth have gone; the 21st century will be shaped by three great blocs – the US, China and the EU. To be alone to assert a meaningless “sovereignty” to assuage the fantasies of rightwing populists is madness.
The emerging rightwing nexus of libertarian tax-cutters and immigration-phobes, so ready to put achieving those aims above the rule of law and respect for human rights, is unfit to govern. At the next election Britain needs a government that will sure-footedly reshape our capitalism and society to promote growth, enfranchisement and a country at ease with itself – respecting rather than deifying its past better to build the future. We can act to shape our destiny. This time no mistakes.“
[Will Hutton, in The Guardian]
I disagree with some of that; agree with more.
The most glaring near-omission is that Hutton scarcely mentions the fact that a million non-whites a year are entering the UK. Most of them are —at best— useless, and most of them are staying, and breeding. That alone would destroy any hope of his carefully-constructed “better-society” blueprint.
Hutton prefers just to look down his nose at what he terms “immigration-phobes“. That may cut it with dinner-party attendees wherever Hutton lives (Hampstead? Richmond? Blackheath? Muswell Hill?), but not with the British people. Things are too serious for that, and impact them directly as well as indirectly.
Hutton seems to think that the importation into the UK of a million persons per year, mostly from backward areas of the world, mostly unskilled, often not even speaking English, is either unimportant or actually desirable. He ignores the fact that few are really useful, many (most) parasitic, and not a few actively hostile and/or criminal.
Hutton also uses the term “rightwing“, which is both anachronistic and imprecise; almost meaningless. Disappointing in a former Master of Hertford College, Oxford.
Hutton is a dyed-in-the-wool EU-remainer. He cannot see any alternative to the UK being just a province of an EU bloc. There is at least one alternative which might fly, but he has obviously not considered it (joining with Russia in loose alliance, while keeping amiable relations with the European Union states and even with the USA etc).
The third problem I have with Hutton’s view is that he lays out broadly what he thinks should happen, but without saying how it might happen. How do we get from here to there?
As to the rest, I agree with almost all of it. It is not too far from the Threefold Social Order of Rudolf Steiner, or might be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_threefolding.
As a kind of manifesto, not too bad, but just a castle in the air viewed from an ivory tower, as things stand.
Talking point
Some tweets seen
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kai_Murros
An interesting Twitter/X account not seen previously by me.
The tweeter’s reference is to Germany (inter alia). Nearly 80 years after the disastrous end of the Second World War, Germany is still, to some extent, an occupied country.
5,000 in the three months of the year which have the roughest seas in the Channel. That probably means anything up to 50,000, maybe even more, by the end of 2024.
That figure is, however, dwarfed by the total of so-called “legal” migration: “high-skilled workers” (Indians who can work a computer), “fiances/fiancees”, “family members”, “students”, and the rest.
The two figures together will almost certainly top a million in 2024 alone. Totally unsustainable. British society will come apart by reason of the continuing migration invasion.
The SNP’s cartoon brand of Scottish “nationalism” has no problem with the leaders of two of the three main parties “up there” being of Pakistani origin, has no problem with a future “independent” Scotland (which will probably never exist anyway) being part of the EU and so largely ruled and regulated by that supranational body, no problem (in reality) with Scotland continuing to be a part of NATO (and so not “independent” in terms of military or naval strategy), and no problem with the Scots being slowly or not so slowly replaced in their own land by hordes of “blacks and browns”.
In short, the SNP is both a fake and a political bad joke. Its two previous leaders have faced, or are facing, criminal charges, and its brief time in the sun (from 2015 to 2024) looks set to descend into night.
My assessment of Esther McVey, from over 4 years ago: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/10/03/deadhead-mps-an-occasional-series-the-esther-mcvey-story/.
Just imagine— after GE 2024, that thick Israel-puppet, Lammy, is set to be the new Foreign Secretary. Unglaublich…
Mirabile dictu…I find myself in agreement with both J.K. Rowling and once-well-known tweeter Robbie Travers… and on the same day.
Quite.
Vagueness is the enemy of a “society under law”. I myself was convicted in November 2023 of breaching the Communications Act 2003, s.127, a law so unjust and poorly-drafted that the Law Commission has formally recommended its repeal.
I was supposed to have published, on this blog, a number of remarks, comments, and cartoons that were “grossly offensive“, and mostly, it was said, about Jewish behaviour.
Truth was irrelevant. Harm was also irrelevant (the Prosecution and the trial judge both accepted from the start that there was no “victim” in the case, and that no actual “harm” had been done to anyone at all).
The prosecution was procured (God knows how…) by the malicious cabal known as “Campaign Against Antisemitism”, a very small but very well-funded Jewish-Zionist group that has admitted, both on Twitter/X and its own website, that it has been trying to have me prosecuted on various bases for 7+ years; I think closer to 10 years.
In fact, the “CAA” has had only a notional victory.
Yes, the “CAA” managed to apply political pressure sufficient to make compliant police box-tickers annoy me with pointless and supposedly “voluntary” interviews in 2017 and 2021 (after the “CAA” made completely false accusations against me); yes, the “CAA” also managed to have political pressure applied to the Crown Prosecution Service so that I was eventually prosecuted (in 2023); yes, I have been inconvenienced by the whole process (though never arrested) and, yes, I was later convicted in the magistrates’ court, having defended myself alone and unaided from all those manifestations of Britain’s new poundland police state.
Having said that, the “CAA” has obviously been disappointed at the ultimate result. My sentence (15 days or part-days of so-called “rehabilitation” under the Probation Service, and a costs order amounting to £734) was clearly less severe than they wanted. It is a nuisance, and one that inconveniences me, yes, but no more.
The “CAA” has been so miffed at the sentence passed upon me that it and its Jewish supporters have not even tweeted about how I have been sentenced (they did tweet when I was convicted last year). Not one tweet from the “CAA” itself about me since the sentence was handed down, and only a couple (I saw 2 or 3 tweets) from stray frustrated “CAA” supporters saying how “derisory” was my sentence. I myself would not say that: the sentence was and is a nuisance, and has caused minor inconvenience, but not excessive inconvenience.
I suppose that the “CAA” will continue to push the police and CPS (when will the office bods of those two organizations realize that they are being “played”?), but I doubt that the “CAA” will get very far; we shall see.
Anyone wishing to help me out with the Court costs order mentioned can do so via https://www.givesendgo.com/GC14J. Thank you. If you cannot donate, please share the link on social media etc. Thank you.
I have already had a few meetings with the rather charming ladies of the Probation Service.
As for the supposedly “grossly offensive” blog posts which founded the November 2023 conviction, they are still extant and capable of being seen. I think that I shall not provide a link to them, in the circumstances, but they are all (all 5 of them) still on the blog, and will remain there indefinitely.
The blog continues to be published daily or near-daily and, while the conviction will, in effect, require me to be more cautious in terms of tone, the material covered will remain much the same, except that I hope to present more from the world of ideas and policy, and perhaps slightly less in terms of mere comment.
The sentencing district judge (on 14 March 2024) refused the Prosecution’s application for a Criminal Behaviour Order against me (which might have restricted my free speech on the blog even further), because it would have been pointless, and because it was so badly-drafted; pathetically poorly, in fact.
I am now under no greater onus, from the strictly legal point of view, than I was when this whole legal and juridical circus started in early 2023.
So there it is…
More tweets seen
…and the Americans continue to supply weapons and ammunition to Israel.
Laurence Fox is ideologically incorrect all the same. We have a right to be Europeans in a European ethnostate. Don’t use the language (e.g. “racist scum“) of the enemy.
Laurence Fox is also pro-Israel and pro-Jewish lobby. Sadly misguided.
Laurence Fox has nothing of interest to say; he should retire from politics (insofar as he is in politics in the first place) as gracefully as possible and as soon as possible.
“They” always try to destroy free speech.
Israel wants to provoke a situation in which the USA will back up Israel and maybe destroy Iran for the Israelis. Tail wags dog…
I hope that there are Scottish people who will not only oppose these police-state measures but who will also identify the most guilty behind the new repression.
A multifaceted civil/cultural war is not unlikely at some point. A society can only take so much without breaking apart.
Late music
Ian Robert Millard 
David Lammy is not just incredibly thick as he conclusively proved on his infamous MasterMind appearance but has a huge chip on his shoulder about we native folk and, like Bernie Grant before him, the police.
He is a pro-Zionist, Zionist entity supporting loon but the irony is that the government of Israel would regard him as ‘untermenschen’ in the same way they think of Palestinians.
Britain will be a worldwide laughing stock with him as Foreign Secretary but then it was with Boris-Idiot filling that post and was when the ever more pathetic and loony globalist Tories appointed James Cleverly (Thickerly) to that formerly prestigious post. Anyone would think these people are chosen to tick some PC boxes rather than ability.
LikeLike
The Swastika is only a ‘hate’ symbol because of relatively recent history but not one if you go back further into history ie before the 1930’s and not with regard to all countries and cultures. Apart from his being a PC globalist loon and nobody, I doubt whether our present unelected PM finds it offensive or a a hate symbol. Indian Hindus don’t. You will find many representations of the Swastika in India.
Anyway, who gets to decide if a symbol is a ‘hate’ symbol or not? There are many in this borderless economic zone/’country’ who find the national symbol of the Union Flag offensive and a ‘hate’ symbol after all that wicked colonial history! Blah, blah, blah!
LikeLike
John:
Quaere the status of the “Star of David”, after the recent and continuing Gaza slaughter? One could distinguish between the symbol and the Israeli flag but the symbol is the most important feature of that flag (just as the “Hakenkreuz” was the major feature of the flag of National Socialist Germany from 1933 to 1945).
For me, the sacred Swastika is the symbol, *primarily*, of continuing evolution.
LikeLike
Apparently, in Judaism, the Star of David is a fairly recent symbol. The Menorah is a more long term one. The Zionist entity has a habit of of conflating Judaism an ancient religion with Zionism which is a relatively recent political movement started by atheists and heretics like Theodor Herzl a mere 140 odd years ago.
The Zionist state should change its flag by removing the Star of David and adopting a specifically Zionist symbol instead.
It would be a good idea also if Benjamin Netanhayu and others in that state stopped their incessant practice of claiming ownership of Jews who live in Britain, France, Germany, the USA etc. That is disrespectful towards the sovereignty of Britain, France, Germany, the USA ect and also helps to increase REAL anti-semitism by making Jews who live in the Diaspora be viewed as ‘Israelis by proxy’.
Even ultra-nationalist Adolf never claimed direct ownership of Germans who lived in other countries so why does Netanhayu do it?
Israel is clearly not a normal state. It isn’t a Jewish state. It is a Zionist one.
https://torahjews.org
https://www.facebook.com/NetureiKarta2021
LikeLike
Zionists use and misuse Jewish symbols. They love to hide behind the religion of Judaism. It shows how devious and dangerous they are.
LikeLike
Esther McVey is not the sharpest pencil in the box to put it mildly. She is due to lose her constituency of Tatton to Labour according to MRP projections. It just goes to show how unpopular the Conservative Party is when a seat like hers that contains very wealthy places like Alderley Edge where multi-millionaire footballers for Manchester United live is due to become a Labour seat along with all other seats in the Cheshire. The county is the ‘Surrey of The North’ no more!
LikeLike
John:
For me, the fact that a thick plank such as Esther McVey can become an MP at all shows just how flawed is the present selection/election system.
LikeLike
Indeed. This is why Germany’s/New Zealand’s system of Mixed-Member Proportional Representation would be a good replacement for the ‘pure’ FPTP electoral system we have. In it, a voter get two votes to cast ie one vote for a candidate in a First Past The Post single-MP constituency as now and a vote for a favourite party on a regional party list.
Having two votes means a voter can use the first one to boot out a useless/thick MP even if they like the party that MP represents since their second vote is used explicitly for a favoured parry.
At the moment with just one vote, a voter who dislikes or doesn’t approve of an MP for some reason either has to vote for an independent, abstain or vote for a different candidate belonging to a party they don’t support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-Member_proportional_representation
LikeLike
Damian Green is a member of the Conservative Party but what it says on the outside is not what is in the tin. Labour is the same. The packaging hasn’t changed but the contents have.
We need new political parties in this country to represent people. In Germany, many formerly staunch CDU voters under Chancellor Kohl have moved away from that party and are now voting for the Alternative For Germany (Afd) because Merkel and company turned the CDU away from its roots and moved it to the ‘centre’ too much.
They can do that easily since, unlike Britain, Germany is a genuine, modern democracy with an electoral system that doesn’t strangle new parties at birth like ours does.
http://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk
LikeLike
John:]
What about the proactive measures which are taken by the “organs of repression” in Germany to squash any too-national parties. The BfV is quite active, I believe.
LikeLike
The Bfv monitor all types of what they deem to be ‘extremist’ groups. There have been two parties outrightly banned in Germany since WW2 ie the Communist Party and the Socialist Reich Party – an explicit neo-Nazi grouping in the 1950’s. The threshold hurdles for banning a party though are very high and rightly so.
They also investigate Islamist organisations. They could save money just by getting an unfair and undemocratic electoral system to do the dirty work for them by replacing Mixed-Member Proportional Representation with our archaic crap of ‘pure’ First Past The Post. However, not only would this be dishonest but would also prevent fair elections and help to stifle and strangle other parties like the Greens and Liberals (FDP). Germany prefers to be a legitimate, modern and genuine democracy rather than engage in dishonest ways of crushing true political diversity like we do.
Germany doesn’t have ‘pure’ Proportional Representation as it did in the Weimar Republic. There is a 5% national electoral threshold a party needs to obtain before it can gain MPs in the Bundestag. This helps to stabilise the political system and prevent parliament from becoming too fragmented with too many parties present thereby hindering the formation of stable and effective governments. One can argue the threshold is a bit on the high side at 5% and therefore ‘wastes’ too many votes and could be lowered to 4% or 3% (New Zealand is reducing theirs from 5% to 3.5% soon) but some sort of threshold can be justified.
LikeLike
Bloody hell, I never saw Swastikas on the offices of Essex County Council before! I have not been to the centre of Chelmsford for a few years even though I live only a few miles away in Brentwood. I am surprised the ‘Tory’ administration in there have not covered them up considering how keen they are to make their publications and posters/advertising ever more PC and ‘diverse’.
LikeLike
John:
Good to see them in that photo, though I expect that there will now be a contrived campaign to rub them out or chip them off.
LikeLike
There ie nothing inherently wrong with being passionately opposed to mass, uncontrolled immigration or, in Will Hutton’s terminology an, “immigration-phobe’. The economic superpowers of Japan and South Korea and how they became them by what could be deemed state partnership with private enterprise and being economical ‘developmental states’ was all done with no tides of constant mass immigration.
LikeLike
John:
As was the NHS in the UK, despite all the propaganda now.
LikeLike
Don’t magistrates, judges, police officers get fed-up with fanatical and malicious organisations like the so-called ‘Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’ (in reality, a misnamed Zionist Pro Israel loony group) wasting their time?
No wonder this country’s crime rate is going in the wrong direction. The present misgovernment has starved the justice system and the police of adequate funding and put excessive PC demands upon them leading to crime victims waiting too long for justice to be done.
A speedy criminal justice system usually makes for an effective one to both punish crime and to deter it from happening in the first place but we don’t have that at present.
LikeLike
John:
You would think so, but quite a few of the police seem to think that working as a poundland KGB or Stasi is more important than preventing or detecting real crime. Not a question of funding; a question of attitude and ethos.
LikeLike
It is funny that what is deemed ‘anti-semitism’ gets plenty of coverage though REAL anti-semitism barely exists in this country and effectively died out in the 1950’s. What about anti-Palestinian feelings or, more broadly, anti Gentileism in general?
LikeLike
David Lammy needs to be reminded that the police as agents of the state should be operationally independent of government and not politically biased in anyway. That has been undermined badly by successive governments starting with Thatcher’s and made worse since. Individual police officers should be allowed to exercise their judgement on a situation. Indeed, that is part of their job description.
LikeLike
I am surprised you gave so much space to Will Hutton, another drone of the system. He makes Matthew Goodwin look good! (LOL)
BTW, it is only a matter of time before AfD is banned for being a “dangerous, far-right platform”. I said this before. Our enemies learnt the lesson of 1933 very well and they will NEVER allow a truly patriotic movement to win any elections.
LikeLike
Claudius:
I hear what you say, and of course you are correct in saying that Hutton is entirely a creature of the System, but I try to find good where I can, and (for me) about 80% or more of what he says there is (depending on circumstances) correct. The problem is the other 20%. For one thing, how can any kind of better society be created when a million backward migrant-invaders enter the UK every single year? Our small country is already swamped. Numbers are key, but also very important is the quality of the new population; in my view, mostly poor, and much of it absolutely rock-bottom.
Germany. Either the AfD will be proscribed, or it will be infiltrated and neutered.
LikeLike
I doubt the German state will ban the Afd. How exactly do you ban a party that has the support of around 20% of the electorate without provoking a big backlash? There is a world of difference between outlawing a party on 5% of the vote and one that can command the support of 1 in 5 voters. It is too late to ban the Afd now. Merkel and company should have thought about the poltical and other consequences of allowing one million or so ‘refugees’ to flood Germany. They should have obtained explicit permission from the German people via a referendum before opening the floodgates.
LikeLike
And the dumb Yanks will cry when they get another 9/11 in response to their crazy and lunatic 100% backing of the inherently violent and continual international law defying Zionist entity and then expect their colony ie us to go around the world bombing and invading other countries such as in Iraq in 2003.
Well sorry, Yanks, we have had enough of being your junior partner in crime just because you can’t free yourselves from the very powerful Zionist Pro-Israel Lobby in your country.
The Zionist entity really does need to be reined in now lest they help to begin WW3. Economic and sporting sanctions need to be placed upon the bandit state.
LikeLike
Lawrence Fox is the kind of goon/plank who would say we don’t have the right to be Europeans in European ethnic states but Israelis have the right to be Zionist Jews in a Zionist state.
LikeLike
So the evil anti-British Labour Party not content with their despicable record of flooding Britain with mass immigration the last time they were in office plan to add to it and then allow 16 year old kids to vote thus further tilting the electorate in a pro-Labour direction and against the Tories.
For God’s Sake, Tories, WAKE THE HELL UP and head Labour off by passing electoral reform legislation NOW before you get crushed by the archaic, undemocratic rubbish of ‘pure’ First Past The Post and won’t even be able to form a credible Opposition because your seat numbers are too low as all the opinion polls and specialised MRP predictions are showing.
LikeLike
There are few, if any, real reasons to allow 16 year olds to vote. In this respect at least, Britain isn’t living in a severely out of date poltical time warp as the present franchise age of 18 is the same as the vast majority of the world’s countries.
Abolishing or electing the House of Lords could be a sensible political reform though not anywhere near as important or necessary as reforming how the House of Commons is voted for.
LikeLike