Both Cameron and MilibandE gave speeches in schools today on the subject of the recent rioting and looting and both basically had the same message - the answer to the underlying problems is yet more government. CallingEngland has videos of both speeches (athough part 1 of Camerons speech has been duplicated and I could not find part 2 on youtube, hence the speech can be read here (although do note that certain sentences and phrases were omitted in the actual speech).
Cameron wishes to change the law on human rights - which will be a neat trick whilst we remain a member of the EU and subjected to rulings from the ECHR. MilibandE wants the eternal politician's answer of an inquiry and a national conversation as his method of resolving the problem.
One thing that MilibandE did say and which resonated with me was that we all bear a share of responsibility for the society we create. A great number of people have put forward a great number of reasons as the cause of the rioting and looting, ranging from education, multiculturalism, lack of respect for law and order, crime, behaviour - the list is virtually endless.
But when considering any of the reasons mentioned, ask yourself this: is there any one reason that cannot be traced back to a political decision? Decade after decade, when things go wrong in our society, we are informed the answer is more government resulting in yet more rules, more regulations, more laws. True to form, what are we going to get this time around? That's right - more government!
If we all bear a share of responsibility for the society we create, then how about a few political 'mea culpas'? How about admitting that frigging around with our education system was wrong; how about admitting that the imposition of multiculturalism was wrong; how about admitting that the police being taken over by those within their ranks with a hidden agenda encapsulating a common purpose was wrong; how about admitting that the policy of behaviour change was wrong; how about admitting that in just about every area of government the politicians themselves were wrong?
12 comments:
"How about admitting that frigging around with our education system was wrong; how about admitting that the imposition of multiculturalism was wrong;............."
If they did that, they'd have to do something about these things. Firstly, they can't because it's too hard, and secondly, they don't want to anyway.
How about admitting that enticing in ever more migrants to do the unskilled jobs that might have been available to the rioting yoofs was wrong.
"how about admitting that the police being taken over by those within their ranks with a hidden agenda encapsulating a common purpose was wrong". True, but the decision by Roy Jenkins to abolish the beat system, thus leading to reactive rather than pro-active and deterrent policing, was a disaster.
They won't. They will dream up more madness and you will swallow it as you swallowed the last dose and the dose before that. You are irrelevant, you will do as the politicians say and fit in but squawk about it.
They are only doing this to ride out their party conferences next month
I blame the government for everything straight off the bat. It is much quicker as somewhere in the mix the government will have a finger in the pie.
They cannot admit that the fault lies with the political class because that would be to admit that they are not needed, they are not the font of all wisdom, they are not required nor wanted as the provider of first choice. Thus they see no other avenue except for more central control, more authoritarianism, more police state and more regulation, all of which will address consequences and none of which will address causes if for no other reason than they cannot see the causes.
It was the total warfare of world war two that opened the gates to all-pervasive government and they have simply dug themselves in deeper and deeper ever since with no intention of letting go. Not even Margaret Thatcher could bear to dilute government. The privatisation of nationalised industries like steel and motor manufacture were for the most part clean breaks but other elements saw the creation of a plethora of over-riding regulatory bodies to ensure government control, all with the added bonus of non-accountability. Government sees itself as the rightful provider where it should never be more than a facilitator using taxation and regulation to encourage beneficial activity and discourage harmful behaviours.
We are paying for the great post war social liberation that not only threw out the baby with the bath water but threw the bath and the taps out after it. Much of today's social ills lie, I am sure, in the way government is only interested in minorities, the wealthy, the 'poor', the disadvantaged, immigrants and so on, everyone else can go hang.
It was the total warfare of world war two that opened the gates....
No, World War ONE.....read up on Defence of The Realm Act passed 8 August 1914......
Look at how Woodrow Wilson in the US sidelined Congress and spied on academics, had mail opened and created an all-intrusive state way beyond George Bush (see Liberal Fascism by Goldberg)
Look at Ludendorff in Germany as Dictator and how Lenin admired the First World War German economy as the basis of Socialism
It was not the Second War that created the USSR, Mussolini's Italy, Bruening's Germany, nor the Polish dictatorship, the Rumanian dictatorship, the Hungarian dictatorship, the Portuguese dictatorship, nor the Spanish dictatorship
I accept your point TomTom, however, you could equally say that it all began in the 1870s when Social Liberalism moved from the Establishment fringe into the centre of politics or with the introduction of income tax and the Naval Press Acts of the Napoleonic wars.
I was referring to the exponential nature of government pervasiveness during and after WW2 which accompanied the political decision that Social Democracy was the only political way forward. Interestingly this change was driven by fear the country's collapse would brought about by the kind of social unrest that followed WW1 and the returning soldiery and which lead to the European problems you mentioned. It was at this time when the number of civil servants, not counting war workers, rose from around 150,000 at the outbreak of war to 500,000 plus, where it has remained. These are pen-pusher jobs, regulatory staff and similar, it does not include NHS staffs and the like that make up the other 5.5 million public sector workers of today. For ordinary folk, and especially in relation to interaction with government, life was little different after WW1 than it was before it. The big changes that effected ordinary folk really only started then. I do know and accept that there were only 50,000 civil servants around 1900.
Oooopps The big changes that effected ordinary folk really only started then. should have been "The big changes that effected ordinary folk really only started with WW2."
For ordinary folk, and especially in relation to interaction with government, life was little different after WW1 than it was before it
I disagree. "Democracy" was proclaimed so you could get men to die en-masse. The wholesale slaughter of Pals Battalions ravaged Northern towns and left thousands of single women without husbands; and widows waiting 7 years to have husbands declared dead so they could get Poor Relief.
40% British Government Spending 1920-1937 was Debt Interest. Not until 1937 when Chamberlain became PM did Defence Spending become the largest single budget item supplanting Debt Interest.
Britain spent 25% National Wealth liquidating its huge overseas portfolio to lend to Russia, France and borrow from the USA. It drove its people into abject poverty to repay French and Russian loans to the US before defaulting.
Only another War saved Britain from decades of grinding poverty. Only Britain ran 24 hour production and employed women in factories - as in WWI. It drafted labour to mines and agriculture.
Your point is clear, but it ignores the fact that Lloyd George was THE War Leader not his understudy Churchill, who simply dusted off the manual.
that Social Democracy was the only political way forward
I don't think that is altogether true. The country was bankrupt, 50% GDP in 1947 was Marshall Aid. The major industries were undercapitalised and had survived on war contracts. The mines and steel industry were fragmented and had no capital. The Korean War cost Britain competitive advantage to Germany and Luxembourg in steel.
It wasn't "social democracy" that cost Britain, it was trying to combine it with huge military spending and soldiers in Korea, Greece, Suez, Aden, Palestine, India.
Guns and Butter are not feasible in a bankrupt economy, and Churchill ran out of money in December 1940 which is why they introduced PAYE to extract purchasing power from a populace paid for munitions unable to consume
c, b, & k: You all make valid points.....
Lord T: Agreed, as I said "is there any one reason that cannot be traced back to a political decision?"
PC & TT: I shall leave you two historians to discuss - all a bit before my time..... :)
Post a Comment