.
JP Floru is a political
commentator, entrepreneur and City of Westminster Councillor.
commentator, entrepreneur and City of Westminster Councillor.
Floru 's Blog
free individuals - free markets - free world trade
WASTING TIME: NICK CLEGG WILL TAKE PART IN THE ELECTION DEBATES
ITV, Sky and the BBC will hold three debates between Brown, Cameron, and...Clegg in the run-up to the general election. Clegg ? Why ? His party is unlikely ever to be in power. It usually wins about 20 % of the votes - will it be allocated 20 % of the speaking time? And if not, why will the left have a voice for about 67 % of the time, and the right for only 33 %?
Can Nick's speaking slots be timed and announced in advance so we can do some vacuum cleaning while he speaks?
22 December 2009
WORLD GOVERNMENT MEANS NO ESCAPE
Janet Daley is right (again). In her Telegraph article "There'll be nowhere to run from the new world government" she describes the dangers of planet-wide laws and government. A world solution to climate change was advocated during the Copenhagen Conference but questioned by virtually nobody.
World Government is bad because it abolishes competition. Competition - not harmonisation - delivers alternatives from which to choose. It is the fountainhead of civilisation itself. Imagine a world government were to have it wrong. Would the consequences not be unimaginably worse than if some countries had it wrong and some right ? Competition is also the engine of freedom: choosing policies and politicians; and, ultimately, choosing countries: allowing one to flee from a country which makes the wrong choices. Where to flee from the world government?
Man made climate change activists will say that there is a global problem for which world government (Leaders in Copenhagen) need to find a global solution. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there is man made climate change (even if we aren't sure, we may still want to do something out of precaution). There is then a global problem: some will suffer, some will gain, but in the long term we all fry. Do we therefore need a legally binding agreement by world government to impose one solution? I think not.
1 The push for a legally binding agreement is a push for coercion. It would force the non-willing into action. The assumption is that some countries will suffer less from global warming and will be unwilling to act unless forced. Also it assumes that many would do nothing if their neighbours were free to continue polluting. These assumptions are wrong. Individual self-interest in not frying has made many take individual action, and push their governments into national action, even though many other individuals and countries do absolutely nothing. Recalcitrant countries will eventually partake in fighting climate change when named and shamed. No coercion needed.
2 The push for world government to decide is undemocratic. It denies the freedom of the individual to choose his own policies and own government. The fact that some countries such as the US said they would have to go back to their parliaments to approve whatever they signed was sneered at by some. Why should democratic countries have to become subject to rules developed by other (non-democratic) countries? Isn't it right that individuals can decide their own policies through democratic elections?
3 The push for one solution flies in the face of reason. In Copenhagen it resulted in the virtual defeat of those advocating developing the technology of carbon capture by those advocating reducing emissions. Why would we need one single solution? Is there unanimity perhaps in the scientific world as to what works best? And how could we know what future scientific developments will bring? Wouldn't it be more palatable for the different countries to do their bit in the way they see fit ? This would generate a wide range of alternative solutions from which we can choose the most appropriate ones. Choice was responsible for civilisation - and may save it, as well.
21 December 2009
FOR OR AGAINST THE POLICE ?
It looks like I have started a bit of a polemic on ConservativeHome. Last week I wrote an article on ConHome about how my car was stopped in Central London by police who invoked anti-terrorism legislation. In my article I asked why the police stopped me for no apparent reason. Most people who are stopped in London do not correspond to a terrorist's profile at all. It may be that many blatently innocent people are stopped to ensure that the police cannot be blamed for targetting specific communities. This is a waste of police resources in the pursuit of political-correctness-gone-mad.
My article on ConHome apparently touched a raw nerve - I have never seen so many reactions. Many bloggers had a similar experience as mine: stopped and inconvenienced by the police for no apparent reason. A few hours after I posted my rant, when it had become clear how popular the issue was, Alex Deane from Big Brother Watch posted the question "Are you for or against the police ?" quoting my article as evidence of "police brutality".
Am I for or against the police? In summary : I am for law and order. I believe law and order is out of control. There are now far fewer police officers per crime in London than in the twenties and thirties. This is an anomaly. I believe police numbers should be drastically increased. I believe in zero tolerance policing because I lived in New yYork for two years and was blown over by how effective it was - resulting in totally safe streets. But there are a few "buts". I posted these in a reply to the For or Against the Police blog. Here it is:
"Policing is one of the most fundamental aspects of a free society; an activity about which all sides of the political spectrum agree that the state should be in control of it, as it needs to be 100 % impartial. It is equally true that there are many places where private security firms can effectively police an area (for example: residents contributing towards private policing of squares in London). Policing is almost invariable part of the services believed to be essential in a minimal state (l'etat-gendarme). In fact, according to John Locke, states were set up to protect individuals' lives (and property, being the fruit of one's labour) from an anarchic world fraught with danger.
Police only exists because the people decide to have it. Police is therefore at the service of the individuals who pay for them through their taxes. Police must not exist as a separate, non-accountable unit - in which case it could be nothing more than a bandit army. It is Conservative Party police to reaffirm democratic control over the police by electing police chiefs. This is not even remotely revolutionary.
Police are there to protect peoples' lives and property. This in itself is a very large task indeed. So the last thing we need is distractions such as political correctness (for example not arresting people who create mayhem because "it might inflame their community"); and harassing individuals who could not even remotely be suspected of being terrorists (stop and search of the blatently innocent as is done on a large scale in London).
We can throw political correctness gone mad out of the window once and for all by treating everyone as individuals, equal under the law, with neither stigma nor privilege attached to class, wealth, social status, sex, sexual orientation, race, country of birth, etc. A crime is a crime; irrespective of who it is committed by. Free and equal individuals, democratically in charge of their police force."
14 December 2009
CITY BASHERS IN CHARGE OF CITY OF LONDON
A few days ago French protectionist Michel Barnier was appointed as the next EU internal market commissioners. I thought I would share this quote from Sarkozy with you :
"Do you know what it means for me to see for the first time in 50 years a French European commissioner in charge of the internal market, including financial services, including the City [of London]? I want the world to see the victory of the European model, which has nothing to do with the excesses of financial capitalism".
EU finance ministers yesterday agreed three new EU authorities with binding powers over national regulators to supervise the bloc's financial markets. Brown’s Britain caved in on the vital issue of “burden of proof”. If there is a conflict between a national regulator and the new authorities, the national regulator will only be able to block the EU authorities if a majority of member states support the national regulator.
How much worse can it get ?
3 December 2009
IS IT THAT DIFFICULT TO KEEP HOSPITALS CLEAN AND TO TEACH CHILDREN TO READ ?
Pretty basic concerns of generations past seem to have been thrown out of the window and replaced with bureaucracy, box-ticking, and ill-judged priorities. What should a school do ? Teach children how to read, and numeracy. What should a hospital do ? Treat patients and make sure that they survive it, in other words : keep the hospital clean. A third of 14 year olds cannot read properly. Today's news that two Essex hospitals were found to have blood-stained floors and equipment trays, moldy machines and soiled mattresses confirms what we thought all alone: that there are a number of hospitals out there which remain firmly dirty. Back to the roots, I say. Focus on the basics and get rid of the fluff, the box-ticking and the overregulation. Comment on Facebook.
27 November 2009
I
ITV, Sky and the BBC will hold three debates between Brown, Cameron, and...Clegg in the run-up to the general election. Clegg ? Why ? His party is unlikely ever to be in power. It usually wins about 20 % of the votes - will it be allocated 20 % of the speaking time? And if not, why will the left have a voice for about 67 % of the time, and the right for only 33 %?
Can Nick's speaking slots be timed and announced in advance so we can do some vacuum cleaning while he speaks?
22 December 2009
WORLD GOVERNMENT MEANS NO ESCAPE
Janet Daley is right (again). In her Telegraph article "There'll be nowhere to run from the new world government" she describes the dangers of planet-wide laws and government. A world solution to climate change was advocated during the Copenhagen Conference but questioned by virtually nobody.
World Government is bad because it abolishes competition. Competition - not harmonisation - delivers alternatives from which to choose. It is the fountainhead of civilisation itself. Imagine a world government were to have it wrong. Would the consequences not be unimaginably worse than if some countries had it wrong and some right ? Competition is also the engine of freedom: choosing policies and politicians; and, ultimately, choosing countries: allowing one to flee from a country which makes the wrong choices. Where to flee from the world government?
Man made climate change activists will say that there is a global problem for which world government (Leaders in Copenhagen) need to find a global solution. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there is man made climate change (even if we aren't sure, we may still want to do something out of precaution). There is then a global problem: some will suffer, some will gain, but in the long term we all fry. Do we therefore need a legally binding agreement by world government to impose one solution? I think not.
1 The push for a legally binding agreement is a push for coercion. It would force the non-willing into action. The assumption is that some countries will suffer less from global warming and will be unwilling to act unless forced. Also it assumes that many would do nothing if their neighbours were free to continue polluting. These assumptions are wrong. Individual self-interest in not frying has made many take individual action, and push their governments into national action, even though many other individuals and countries do absolutely nothing. Recalcitrant countries will eventually partake in fighting climate change when named and shamed. No coercion needed.
2 The push for world government to decide is undemocratic. It denies the freedom of the individual to choose his own policies and own government. The fact that some countries such as the US said they would have to go back to their parliaments to approve whatever they signed was sneered at by some. Why should democratic countries have to become subject to rules developed by other (non-democratic) countries? Isn't it right that individuals can decide their own policies through democratic elections?
3 The push for one solution flies in the face of reason. In Copenhagen it resulted in the virtual defeat of those advocating developing the technology of carbon capture by those advocating reducing emissions. Why would we need one single solution? Is there unanimity perhaps in the scientific world as to what works best? And how could we know what future scientific developments will bring? Wouldn't it be more palatable for the different countries to do their bit in the way they see fit ? This would generate a wide range of alternative solutions from which we can choose the most appropriate ones. Choice was responsible for civilisation - and may save it, as well.
21 December 2009
FOR OR AGAINST THE POLICE ?
It looks like I have started a bit of a polemic on ConservativeHome. Last week I wrote an article on ConHome about how my car was stopped in Central London by police who invoked anti-terrorism legislation. In my article I asked why the police stopped me for no apparent reason. Most people who are stopped in London do not correspond to a terrorist's profile at all. It may be that many blatently innocent people are stopped to ensure that the police cannot be blamed for targetting specific communities. This is a waste of police resources in the pursuit of political-correctness-gone-mad.
My article on ConHome apparently touched a raw nerve - I have never seen so many reactions. Many bloggers had a similar experience as mine: stopped and inconvenienced by the police for no apparent reason. A few hours after I posted my rant, when it had become clear how popular the issue was, Alex Deane from Big Brother Watch posted the question "Are you for or against the police ?" quoting my article as evidence of "police brutality".
Am I for or against the police? In summary : I am for law and order. I believe law and order is out of control. There are now far fewer police officers per crime in London than in the twenties and thirties. This is an anomaly. I believe police numbers should be drastically increased. I believe in zero tolerance policing because I lived in New yYork for two years and was blown over by how effective it was - resulting in totally safe streets. But there are a few "buts". I posted these in a reply to the For or Against the Police blog. Here it is:
"Policing is one of the most fundamental aspects of a free society; an activity about which all sides of the political spectrum agree that the state should be in control of it, as it needs to be 100 % impartial. It is equally true that there are many places where private security firms can effectively police an area (for example: residents contributing towards private policing of squares in London). Policing is almost invariable part of the services believed to be essential in a minimal state (l'etat-gendarme). In fact, according to John Locke, states were set up to protect individuals' lives (and property, being the fruit of one's labour) from an anarchic world fraught with danger.
Police only exists because the people decide to have it. Police is therefore at the service of the individuals who pay for them through their taxes. Police must not exist as a separate, non-accountable unit - in which case it could be nothing more than a bandit army. It is Conservative Party police to reaffirm democratic control over the police by electing police chiefs. This is not even remotely revolutionary.
Police are there to protect peoples' lives and property. This in itself is a very large task indeed. So the last thing we need is distractions such as political correctness (for example not arresting people who create mayhem because "it might inflame their community"); and harassing individuals who could not even remotely be suspected of being terrorists (stop and search of the blatently innocent as is done on a large scale in London).
We can throw political correctness gone mad out of the window once and for all by treating everyone as individuals, equal under the law, with neither stigma nor privilege attached to class, wealth, social status, sex, sexual orientation, race, country of birth, etc. A crime is a crime; irrespective of who it is committed by. Free and equal individuals, democratically in charge of their police force."
14 December 2009
CITY BASHERS IN CHARGE OF CITY OF LONDON
A few days ago French protectionist Michel Barnier was appointed as the next EU internal market commissioners. I thought I would share this quote from Sarkozy with you :
"Do you know what it means for me to see for the first time in 50 years a French European commissioner in charge of the internal market, including financial services, including the City [of London]? I want the world to see the victory of the European model, which has nothing to do with the excesses of financial capitalism".
EU finance ministers yesterday agreed three new EU authorities with binding powers over national regulators to supervise the bloc's financial markets. Brown’s Britain caved in on the vital issue of “burden of proof”. If there is a conflict between a national regulator and the new authorities, the national regulator will only be able to block the EU authorities if a majority of member states support the national regulator.
How much worse can it get ?
3 December 2009
IS IT THAT DIFFICULT TO KEEP HOSPITALS CLEAN AND TO TEACH CHILDREN TO READ ?
Pretty basic concerns of generations past seem to have been thrown out of the window and replaced with bureaucracy, box-ticking, and ill-judged priorities. What should a school do ? Teach children how to read, and numeracy. What should a hospital do ? Treat patients and make sure that they survive it, in other words : keep the hospital clean. A third of 14 year olds cannot read properly. Today's news that two Essex hospitals were found to have blood-stained floors and equipment trays, moldy machines and soiled mattresses confirms what we thought all alone: that there are a number of hospitals out there which remain firmly dirty. Back to the roots, I say. Focus on the basics and get rid of the fluff, the box-ticking and the overregulation. Comment on Facebook.
27 November 2009
I
Copyright Floru 2007
