The ThunderDragon

ASDA are my hero of the day.

In response to the SNPs nanny state proposals to crack down on cheap alcohol, they have declared:

There is nothing to stop companies looking at expanding their home shopping network or opening up depots just south of the border and delivering to homes in Scotland.

So if the SNP continue with their stupid idea, they will build distribution centres in England and sell cheap alcohol to Scottish homes.

Good on them!

Apparently, according to the SNP, “high-strength, low-cost alcohol is not a right.” Erm, why? It is my money that I am spending and my body into which I am poring it. So yes, it is a right for me to be able to buy what I want at the cheapest available price.

The right to buy cheap alcohol from an off-licence or alcoholmarket supermarket is not something that they should be allowed to take away without a fight. I fully support ASDA in seeking to preserve the rights of Scotsmen to drink alcohol at the price they wish to pay for it.

A storm has risen up over MPs having investments in Zimbabwe. Or, rather, as the facts actually are, in companies which have a presence in Zimbabwe.

The Independent On Sunday proclaims that:

Three of David Cameron’s frontbenchers are among six Conservatives – and one Liberal Democrat – with investments together worth more than £1m in firms trading in Zimbabwe. The revelations will embarrass the Tory leader, who has sought to take the moral high ground over the crisis in Zimbabwe.

Except the firms involved are major international firms, such as Shell, Barclays, BP, and Tesco. These investments are not investments in Zimbabwe, but investments in a major company - something which is hardly inappropriate, so long as it is properly reported.

By referring to these investments as “blood money”, the Independent is in effect trying to criminalise anyone who has investments with or uses the services of any of those companies, as there is little real difference between these two things in reality - as plenty of choice exists in both.

If I banked with Barclays, shopped at Tesco and filled up my car at a Shell garage, the Independent is in effect claiming that I am also “propping up Robert Mugabe’s regime”.

What is most ironic with the Indy’s faux outrage at this story is this fact dredged up by Guido:

Hypocritically, the Indy’s parent company, Independent News & Media PLC, owns 100% of CCI, which according to the corporation’s own website “is the largest and fastest-growing outdoor advertising company in South Africa, with significant operations in Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.”

So the Independent is “propping up Robert Mugabe’s regime”. And to a far greater extent than any individual shareholder.

Then there is the hypocrisy a member of the government, John Mann MP (PPS to Tessa Jowell) saying:

Politicians profiting from the blood of the Zimbabwean people need to consider their position. What this shows is that greed for money supersedes moral responsibility.

Then why don’t you go and talk to the Chacellor of the Exchequer, John, and ask him why Northern Rock - the bank he nationalised - is active in Zimbabwe? Or is it only politicians from parties that aren’t Labour who need to “consider their position” when they profit [or not, as the case may be] from “the blood of the Zimbabwean people”?

The current situation in Zimbabwe is reprehensible, and whether or not a few MPs hold shares in a multi-national that just happens to have a presence in Zimbabwe means nothing. The situation in Zimbabwe is one that needs to be rectified - but can’t until the African leaders want to.

Pundit Kitchen

With growing inflation, it’s no surprise that the Royal Family have spent more this year than last year. They’ve cost the taxpayer £40million in the past 12 months - an increase of £2million.

Or, to put that another way, 66p per person instead of 62p.

Personally, I think that represents outstanding value for money. For 66p you can’t even buy 66 penny sweets nowadays. It’s less than the price of this morning’s paper. I think it could get me 1 track off itunes - if I used that instead of buying CDs as I prefer. In this day and age, it’s nothing.

Never the less, republicans have jumped on the publication of the Royal Accounts as another chance to dismiss the monarchy. It doesn’t include the rising costs of security - OK, they’re not going to be insignificant, but overall it shouldn’t cost more than a Chomp bar each. They’re saying the increase of £2million is huge - but realistically it represents a reduction in costs considering inflation.

It is a lot of money, let’s be fair. But, someone needs to calculate what money the Royals bring into our country. People visit London just for a chance of seeing the Queen (particularly Americans). The tourist industry is huge as people check out Buckingham Palace. Various Royals have particular roles. The Duke of York is the UK’s “Special Representative for International Trade and Investment” - he encourages people to invest in UK business and, as I understand it, does a fantastic job. Everyone’s role at public functions has immeasurable benefit in terms of publicity for the organising body (often a charity) and pride for those people who meet the Royal Family.

I’m yet to hear a convincing argument to get rid of the Monarchy. Conversely, given the present state of our government, I’m sure it would be quite easy to make a convincing argument to let The Queen ignore conventions and start running the UK as she wants to!

~ Asp

See: BBC News, Times Online, CNN

Little note - The Northern Monkey (or Snake) is off on annual leave for the next month. Peace and quiet beckons throughout July, rantings will return in August.

One by-election was just a month ago. Another held its vote yesterday. And the candidate list for one more has just closed.

They think it’s all over - but it isn’t yet:

A Labour MP is set to resign forcing another potentially embarrassing by-election for Gordon Brown in the wake of his fifth place humiliation in Henley.

The Telegraph can reveal that David Marshall, the East Glasgow MP, will stand down because of ill-health on Monday.

The seat, with a 13,507 Labour majority, would normally be considered safe.

However, the Scottish National Party will target the seat and Labour sources told the Telegraph that they believed the seat was “vulnerable.” (The Telegraph)

Another by-election test for Gordon Brown. After avoiding a vote every possible opportunity, it seems that fate is conspiring the ensure that the people get as many chances to vote on Gordo as possible.

Unlike Henley - or even Crewe and Nantwich - Glasgow East is not a constituency that can, under any circumstance, be claimed to be a likely Conservative target. In 2005, Labour got nearly 61% of the vote with the Conservatives on just 7% and the SNP in second place on 17%, so to lose the seat would be a very clear signal indeed that Brown has to go.

Labour will have to fight tooth-and-nail for Glasgow East. They have no other choice. If they lose this seat, the end is more than nigh - but right here, right now.

UPDATE: More Scottish bad news for Brown, as Wendy Alexander is to stand down as Scottish Labour leader.

What this really means is that yet another headache will be added to Brown’s already-huge pile of problems, exascerbated by the fact that Wendy Alexander is very much a Brownite.

The most important thing to come out of this, however, is that Mr Eugenides will be sad.

Today the Labour Party is humiliated. The Henley by-election was an even worse result than Crewe and Nantwich. The results are as follows:

1. John Howell:  Conservatives, 19,796 (56.95%, +3.46%)
2. Stephen Kearney: Lib Dems, 9,680 (27.85%, +1.84%)
3. Mark Stevenson: Green, 1,321 (3.80%, +0.54%)
4. Timothy Rait: BNP, 1,243 (3.58%, -)
5. Richard McKenzie: Labour, 1,066 (3.07%, -11.68%)
6. Chris Adams: UKIP, 843 (2.43%, -0.07%)

The rules covering MPs expenses are being tightened. But not by much, and not really properly. It’s a bodge of a compromise.

MPs will no longer be able to use taxpayer’s money to improve their homes by buying new kitchens, bathrooms, or furniture - and they will have to produce receipts for every item claimed, rather than just those over £250.

However, they will be given £30 to spend every day that Parliament is in session - £4,200 a year - without receipts. And the overall amount of expenses that MPs can claim every year is just £206 less than before at £23,800.

That is still one hell of a lot of our money that MPs can just take. It is still frankly extortionate. This half-arsed proposal especially doesn’t go anywhere near far enough:

At least one in five MPs would face “spot checks” on their expenses claims to be carried out by the National Audit Office and a full external audit on all expenses once per Parliament.

Why not every MP? And why just once a Parliament, ie. every four years or so? There should be an audit of every MP every year to check their expense claims. It is our money, so we must be sure that it is being spent properly.

The expenses must be tightened properly and fully: any and all expense claims must be supported by receipts, and the expenses of all MPs should be published every month, or at least every quarter. Until then, we can have no confidence that they are not fiddling the system.

Certainly that will be the case if this happens:

Unions are to demand new rights to strike as the price for keeping the cash-strapped Labour Party afloat.

Repealing the ban on secondary industrial action is among a swath of left-wing policies that unions want to see in the Labour manifesto. The pressure on Gordon Brown comes as he is relying on the unions to help to avert Labour’s cash crisis, when they are in increasingly militant mood…

As unions begin to flex their muscles on the ground, they are working to maximise their leverage over the Prime Minister at a time when the Government is politically vulnerable and the party is financially parlous. (The Times)

If Labour give in to the Unions, they will have sold this country down the river.

Discrimination is wrong, in every way. This is something we all agree on, right? So how is tacking the word “positive” on to it making it any better?

What Harman is proposing is utterly disgusting. The very idea that firms should discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minority job candidates is no better than than discrimination in favour of middle-aged white men.

Discrimination in order to increase diversity and to “help organisations such as the police better reflect the communities they serve” isn’t a Good Thing in the slightest. In fact, it is very much a Bad Thing.

What this sort of “positive discrimination” does is prevent the best person for the job from getting it, regardless of their race or gender. ANnndhis drives up resentment among those who see others getting jobs and promotions not because they are good at what they do or deserve it, but because they either lack of a penis or have different coloured skin.

Harman seems to think that selection by qualification or suitability is an old-fashioned and quaint idea. She says that were it not for all-women shortlists, it’s likely she would not have become an MP - an argument against “positive discrimination” if I’ve every seen one.

It’s not possible to justify Harman’s idea of positive discrimination without having a twisted view of society and jumping through massive hoops of self-delusion.

“We The People” is a column written for the Wardman Wire. This blog post can also be seen here.

The attitude of politicians today to democracy can so well be summed up by the cartoon below, by Peter Brookes in the Times.

All for democracy - except where it might adversely affect them and what they want. Screw the people! Democracy is for the politicians!

There are two main areas in which democracy is taking a battering at the moment - Zimbabwe and the European Union. Neither of which are exactly strangers to this.

The difference between the two is as much as anything all in the appearance: Mugabe deploys violence and force in order to ensure that he stays in power; the European Union bureaucracy deploys “diplomacy”. Both ignore what we the people - the ones from whom they are supposed to draw their power through the support of - want.

Zimbabwe

The people of Zimbabwe want the MDC to control the parliament and Morgan Tsvangirai as President. Yet Mugabe declares that he will “go to war” before he would let Tsvangirai take over as President.

So he simply doesn’t care what the result of the presidential run-off would have been, had their actually been an opposition candidate. He doesn’t care about democracy, just about having power. Even the UN have declared that any Zimbabwean poll cannot be free and fair.

In the end, there is nothing that we can do about Zimbabwean democracy. Only the other African leaders can stop Mugabe and free the people of Zimbabwe from tyranny. Just calling for the poll to be delayed is not good enough by a very very long shot. The very principles of democracy need to be re-established.

European Union

Then we come to the European Union. This body suffers a democratic deficit nigh on as large as Zimbabwes, with the elected element having so very little power indeed. They are going to continue ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, despite it having been rejected by the Irish people.

The only people who got to vote on the Lisbon Treaty voted against it. Whilst every other country decided to press ahead and not bother asking their electorate what they thought but ratify it by parliament instead, Ireland asked the people. And they said no. Yet the EU don’t and won’t accept “no” for an answer, and appear to expect the referendum to be held again, like they did with Nice. If they do, they will destroy any claim that they ever had to being democratic.

In the UK, ratification was successfully stalled through legal action by Stuart Wheller who said that we the people had a “legitimate expectation” to be able to vote on Lisbon. But that has been lost - but hope still rests on an appeal, however slim that chance may be.

The EU is no a democratic institution. As the famous statment goes, it would not meet it’s own democratic criteria to join itself. And that goes quite some way to demonstrate the doublethink that surrounds and permeates it.

Conclusion

Democracy today is not democracy as it should be. It doesn’t meet the ideological requirements of democracy or even the practical requirements in Zimbabwe and the EU. The cry of “democracy!” spills from the mouths of all politicians, yet few ever actually do anythign about the issues in their own backyards. It is always someone else who is lacking in it; never themselves.

I am the first to admit that democracy is unlikely to be perfect in every, or indeed any, case. But these two examples are some of the worst in the world today - dictatorship under the banner of democracy.

“We The People” is a column written for the Wardman Wire. This blog post can also be seen here.