Apr 292014
 

Ok, they may not be lies exactly but it does make a good title. UKIP have dropped a leaflet through my door looking for my vote in the upcoming elections.

They ain’t getting it.

But let’s take a look at their leaflet or rather some of the things they say in it …

…from the UK Independence Party, South East Region

Well done! You’ve annoyed me with the first bit of text on the leaflet … I do not live in the south east, but in the south … or to be more historic, Wessex. Given the importance of the Wessex region to the history of England, you would have expected a nationalist party like UKIP to incorporate a bit of national pride in their history. But perhaps none of them know anything about history.

allowed open-door immigration

Well that was not much of a surprise, but “open-door” is a bit of an exaggeration isn’t it? After all, nobody from outside of Europe can come in without special permission. UKIP will say that they mean the open-door for European migrants … to which I respond: Say what you mean then.

And considering migration within Europe, you have to consider migration from the UK to the rest of Europe as well as migration from Europe into the UK. Stop the Europeans from coming in, and Europe is very likely to stop people from the UK migrating to places within Europe.

And there is probably a great deal more of it than UKIP suspects. According to the UK Office of Statistics :-

If you look at the graph, you can see that the overall level of immigration was falling in 2008 and at the peak was at roughly 225,000 people per year. The number of people born in countries other than Britain is still a tiny minority of the total population. What has happened over the last decade is that various factors have encouraged immigrants to settle in more areas of the country than would have been the case in the past, so it appears to some than we are getting flooded with immigrants. When people say we are getting too much immigration, they are probably being deceived on how much immigration there is.

And indeed according to the Wikipedia article on immigration to the UK, only 3.3% of the population were born in Europe whereas 7.7% were born outside of Europe. So the majority of the “immigration problem” are in fact non-European immigrants.

And it’s easy to overlook than many – indeed probably most – of those immigrants want to be British.

… United States of Europe …

Scary isn’t it?

There are basically two ways to approach this – either be on the outside observing what is happening, or be on the inside and be part of what is happening. In the later, those who oppose the idea can work on stopping it. It’s a fact of life that Europe is there and isn’t going away, and it’s going to have an enormous influence on the future of the UK whether we are part of it or not. Given that it makes a great deal of sense to stay in Europe to change Europe to suit us more than would otherwise be the case.

Europe has problems that need to be addressed … part of which is that the unelected European Commission has too much power, and the European parliament has too little power.

There are those who say Britain is a major global player and that we can survive on our own. Sure we can survive, but hopefully our ambitions are to prosper and not just survive. It is true that we are a major global power, but not to the extent that the US or China are … to oppose the superpowers, we need to be joined to a superpower. Those believing we can go our own way and still push the superpowers to act in our interests is unrealistically jingoistic and looks back to a time when the British Empire could do that. That time has past.

more jobs after we leave the EU

I don’t think anyone can predict the number of jobs that would be lost or gained by leaving Europe – it’s such a complex question to answer that anyone who knows is probably deceiving themselves (and us).

As to Europe shrinking as a world player … well that’s just ridiculous. It may be shrinking a bit, but it’s still the largest economy in the world with a GDP of approximately$17 billion; a smidgen more than the USA (which is the largest country). Anyone who believes that Europe is in decline is foolish in the extreme; it would have to decline enormously for it not to be a benefit to be part of it. Look at the newest members of Europe – how many of them had to be forced to sign up?

No, Europe won’t stop trading with us. But leaving Europe will put barriers in the way … not sufficient barriers to stop Europe buying from us, but sufficient that if a choice had to be made between nearly equal quality sellers then the British seller would lose out because buying from inside Europe will be just a bit more convenient.

Food and fuel will be CHEAPER outside the EU

It is true that the European agricultural policy results in higher food prices than would otherwise be the case. And changing that policy is somewhat difficult. It could be that food prices would be lower if we left Europe, but there is no guarantee … after all farmers are a particularly loud lobby group and would probably manage to argue for some level of transitional help equivalent to the European agricultural policy.

And nobody seems to have a figure for just how much food prices would decline if we left Europe.

One thing that is overlooked is just why the agricultural policy is in place; amongst other things, it is in place to ensure that farmers can make enough money so that they stay in the business of producing food. This is to ensure that European citizens have food security – so that we are not reliant on food imports to feed ourselves. Given our history, it is somewhat surprising that the UK isn’t a fan of the agricultural policy – before WWII, much of Britain’s food supply was dependent on food imports, as a result of which Britain suffered during WWII because food imports were difficult to get. Anyone remember rationing and food scarcity?

Perhaps we can decide that food security is not as important as it used to be.

As to fuel costs, the “green taxes” are not so much European inspired, as global warming inspired. Perhaps there are better ways of doing it, but reducing fossil fuel usage is definitely an aim worth going for.

We’ll SAVE enough to mend our economy for our children

According to UKIP, our membership fee for Europe is £55 million a year, which adds up to some £20 billion a year. So where is the £165 billion a year coming from?

Of course £20 billion sounds like an enormous amount to any normal person, but in term of government spending it’s a drop in the ocean. It’s also wrong; according to the BBC, the membership fees paid by the UK actually add up to around  €11 billion which comes out at about £9 billion.

Now in addition to this, we have to take account of European spending on projects within the UK … including all those payments to farmers that we complain about. So when you come down to it, the amount we pay overall is a lot less than £9 billion. Whilst we don’t benefit greatly by those projects, it’s worth remembering that much of European spending goes on European countries in trouble; if we find ourselves in trouble at some point in the future, we can expect to get lots of European money to help us out.

Too much perhaps? I’d argue that it’s well worth it, but the main point here is that the UKIP leaflet is vastly over-exaggerating the cost of Europe.

We can tell the European Court of Human Rights where to go

According to UKIP, the UK has a proud tradition of liberty and freedom – which is correct. But today there is something worrying about the UK government as it seems to be eroding rights everywhere it can – take for example the immense amount of surveillance by GCHQ.

Europe doesn’t have a GCHQ; I’d rather trust them to look after human rights than the UK government.

We can TRADE with the world, not subsidise it

I’m not sure what point UKIP is making here. We can already trade with the world independently of Europe; we can already decide not to subsidise other countries. As to complaining about Europe sending money to that list of dodgy countries (what’s so dodgy about them?), it’s worth pointing out that the UK doesn’t provide all of the money that Europe has … so when UKIP says it’s your money, they are in fact exaggerating … only about 1/3 (at most) is yours; most of it “belongs” to other European countries.

By being part of Europe we can take advantage of both trade deals that Europe organises and trade deals that the UK organises. There are limits to this of course, but we still benefit from two sets of negotiators whereas on our own it would be just one set of negotiators, and a behemoth like China, or the USA would be more likely to pay attention to Europe than a little country like the UK.

Summary

I’m pro-Europe, so I’m hardly likely to vote for UKIP. But even if I were anti-Europe, I’d be unlikely to vote for such a bunch of ignorant racists.

I’m used to seeing politicians distort the truth (if not outright lie), but this UKIP leaflet takes the prize for being the most ignorant distortion of the facts that I’ve ever seen. Perhaps the BNP would be worst, but those get thrown away without reading.

Apr 222014
 

In short: No.

The word nation refers to the people within the country (and technically outside too – at least those who share their identity), so the religion of a nation is the sum total of the religions of all the people within that nation.

According to the last census, approximately 60% of Britains put themselves down as “Christian”, which means that on the surface 40% are not Christian (and nearly 25% of the total are “not religious”).

But there is quite a good chance that a significant proportion of that 60% are not fully Christian in the sense that it may be easiest just to say “Christian” when asked without really meaning it. Particularly in smaller communities (and there’s still a fair number left), a lot of community social life is associated with the church.

And a lot of older people will remember a time when choosing “Church of England” was the closest you could get to choosing “No religion”.

But even if 60% of the population is Christian, then we still cannot say that Britain is a Christian nation – too many people belong to other religions or none at all and claiming that we are a Christian nation excludes those others.

But is Britain a Christian state?

Well yes, and no.

The Church of England is an established church; whereas the Church in Wales, and the Church of Scotland are not. Meaning that if you live in England there is an official state religion but in other parts of Britain there is not. To add to the confusion, the Church in Wales is a daughter church of the Church of England.

But whilst the Church of England is an established church, most of the rights and privileges of an established church have been stripped away over the years. The remaining rump of rights is rather negligible with one exception – the head of state is also the head of the Church of England.

But the monarch has rather less power in reality than in practice. The current queen could in theory dissolve parliament at any time she chose; in practice parliament is most likely to ignore her wishes. Similarly if the queen were to start interfering with the Church of England, the Archbishop is likely to politely but firmly ignore her.

Similarly being a member of the Church of England does not in practice give you any special advantages; nor does a non-member suffer any significant disadvantages. The only disadvantage I can think of is that if I were somehow to become a candidate to become the next king, I would be excluded from the succession because I’m not a Christian; but there are other far more significant obstacles.

But is our culture influenced by Christian values? That is an impossible question to answer unless you specify which values and allow me to point out that many so-called Christian values are in fact values shared by anyone without regard to religion.

We do have a Christian past. And a pagan past. And many other influences from the past. All of which influence the values of Britons today.

Apr 142014
 

It’s a bit ridiculous to compare the two, but if you look at the number of casualties involved, the 9/11 terrorist incident which caused around 2,900 casualties is very roughly comparable in size to The Troubles (with some 3,500 casualties). Of course the troubles consisted of many small incidents over a period of 30-odd years.

During that time, one of the IRA‘s (the “Official IRA”, the “Provisional IRA” and the INLA) principle source of funds were the groups NORAID and Clan na Gael. Which were based in the USA, and raised funds from supporters in the USA.

Or in other words, some US citizens were helping to fund a 9/11.

What’s more anyone who reads the history of the IRA is made very aware that the IRA regarded the US as a safe haven for their “soldiers”.

It’s interesting to contemplate using some the war on terror’s weapons against some US citizens :-

  • Extra-ordinary rendition of US citizens to concentration camps excluded from the protection of the law – so they could be tortured.
  • Freezing of the assets of some US citizens suspected of helping to fund terrorism.

It is perhaps a useful tool to consider whether certain counter-terrorism tactics are a step too far.

 

Mar 222014
 

You would have thought that people would have reacted to the grass roots Cancer awareness campaigns known by their hash tags of #nomakeupselfie and #manupandmakeup either by joining in, or by thinking it’s a bit silly and ignoring it. But no, someone has to miss the point and run off at a tangent.

Now it’s possible that what she writes about women wearing makeup is true … I’m not qualified to judge, although it’s interesting to note that men and women have both been wearing makeup for thousands of years. There’s no signs that women or men started first.

Oh! And just for the record, if a woman pops down the shops early in the morning without wearing makeup and happens to look like a zombie that’s been that way for three weeks, men do not stop, gawk, and then run off down the street shouting “The zombie apocalypse is here”.

But what I do have to take exception to is the idea that the men behind (and in front) of #manupandmakeup are mocking femininity. I don’t think femininity was in their heads at the time, except when looking at a #nomakeupselfi picture and wondering “how can I get involved”.

Because it’s self evident that a campaign that involves taking off your makeup is somewhat tricky for most men to get involved with. Making the switch from taking makeup off to putting makeup on, is a simple and indeed brilliant way of changing that.

If there is any mocking involved, it’s self-mockery. Men are deliberately making themselves look ridiculous to make a point.

And just for the record, it’s noticeable just how many #nomakeupselfie pics come complete with a statement along the lines of “nothing you haven’t seen before”.

Mar 132014
 

It is all too easy to fall into the politics of envy, or be thought of doing the same when thinking about whether the rich are just a little bit too rich. It could be thought of as “banker bashing”, but despite the huge bonuses that bankers earn, it isn’t that. It is not about any particular segment of the rich, or superrich, but the apparently increasing gap between the income that the rich have and the poor have.

It is not something that has suddenly come about either – it has nothing to do with the current (or recent) recession – it has been happening over a long period of time. And it is not just the radical left who are pointing out that there is a problem with increasing income inequality – even those who pray at the alter of capitalism are getting a little concerned about what is happening. As an example, read this.

The more paranoid believe that with an increasing gap between the rich and poor is the risk of increased violence as the poor decide to do a little wealth redistribution on an informal basis. There’s an element of truth to that, and perhaps that is sufficient to look at doing something about income inequality by itself.

But there is a reason for looking at income inequality that is less selfish – it is merely the right thing to do. To some extent we have lost sight of what an economy is for; we are familiar with the system that seems to have won out as the means of effectively running an economy – the mixed economy where entrepreneurs make as much money as possible and the government interferes to alleviate the excesses of the entrepreneur. Or at least some of them.

What is an economy for ? If we go back to the distant past and look at the origins of government we find that many people were organised into clans or tribes. The ties between members of a tribe were much the same as between members of a family. In the better tribes, people would often sacrifice some of their income to assist other members. This was not always those members of the tribe that were less fortunate, but would also include those who had tasks that kept them busy and away from direct food production – the soldiers that protected the farmers, the scientists who researched ways of making farming better (iron plows didn’t invent themselves), etc.

In simplistic terms an economy is there to provide food, drink, shelter, etc. to all of the people in a country. Perhaps that does not include ‘extras’ such as TVs, cars, fancy clothes, holidays in the sun, etc., but to a certain extent the wealth of a country should be shared amongst the population. Not necessarily equally mind – the hard worker deserves more ‘stuff’ than the lazy person, but too unequal is just as bad.

We choose to implement our economies using a slightly toned down version of the free market economy. It seems to be the most effective at creating wealth, but it does have a tendency to distribute that wealth very poorly. Left alone, such a system tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few. Which simplistically is roughly what we are seeing.

The traditional approach to this, is for the government to tax the rich to distribute to the poor. That still happens, but apparently not effectively enough. The argument from those who create wealth is that too much taxation destroys the incentive to create wealth. There is a certain amount of truth in that, although the more dedicated entrepreneurs are not so interested in the money they make as the “score” in the “game” of making wealth. There is no reason why they cannot include how many hospitals they fund as part of their “score”.

Notice that we label entrepreneurs as ‘creators of wealth’ above ? We need to get away from that as it’s wrong. Even in the primary economy where raw materials are produced ready for other industries to use, the entrepreneur does not create wealth. He or she organises the real wealth creators (the workers) and makes arrangements whereby their labour is made more effective at creating wealth – such as investing in automation in a coal mine so each miner is more productive. As the organiser of workers, the entrepreneur deserves a significant reward for his or her efforts, and so do the investors. But the workers also deserve a share of the spoils.

There are those who would argue that the workers take their reward in terms of a salary. Not much of a reward though is it ? Especially with all the entrepreneurs trying to keep their salary costs down. And besides, entrepreneurs also often take a salary (and usually not a small one either). If you look at the entrepreneur’s salary, it is essentially a means of keeping body and soul together in advance of the profits he or she expects to make later. Why shouldn’t workers also expect the same sort of reward ?

The traditional view is that the entrepreneur needs to be rewarded for the risks that he or she takes, but doesn’t the worker taking a risk when he or she works for a company ? He risks that he will be fairly treated by the management; she risks her future in the hope that the company will survive long enough to give her a job for as long as she wants. Not as much risk perhaps, but some risk deserves some of the profits.

The sad thing about all the fuss about banker’s bonuses is that we’re criticising them for doing the right thing – if the wrong way. They are sharing the profits of the company with the workers, but in a very unequal way. The “stars” of banking are being paid vast bonuses whereas the ordinary workers are getting little or no reward. This is in support of a common misconception – that the top people in any profession can accomplish what they do on their own.

There are very few professionals who manage that – or anywhere near it. Take for example an office cleaner. The cleaner cleans the office of the professional, so that he or she has more time to make money – after all very few people are prepared to work in an office that never gets cleaned, and will eventually clean it themselves taking time that could be better spent in other activities. The cleaner is employed to free the professional to specialise in the work they do.

Shouldn’t that professional share their wealth with the cleaner? The cleaner’s work has allowed that professional to make more money than they would otherwise make. And this argument goes further – nobody creates wealth without the help of others.

There aren’t any answers here – I don’t know of a solution to this problem, but it is a problem that needs to be solved.