Calm down, dear: the petrol strike is off.. for the time being!

The tanker drivers strike has been postponed for the time being. Patronising Ministers filled the TV screen with fatuous advice about filling our petrol tanks which naturally led to panic buying, and to stockpile with jerry cans in our garages. How daft can you get? Small wonder that politicians are so universally despised when they talk to us a if we were all kids, dishing out condescending claptrap.

What they have not explained is what the issues are; they probably think that we are too thick to understand.

From what I can devil out, it’s not about money. Drivers are pretty well paid, between £35,000 and £45,000 a year, or about twice the average earnings.  They can also knock up quite a bit of overtime at £45 an hour.

It’s mainly about conditions.

Over the years the big oil companies have stopped running tankers and have contracted-out deliveries to haulage firms. BP, for example, uses 300 contractors.

A problem for drivers is that when a contract changes the employer changes, with all sorts of implications for e.g. pensions. The Union leader cited cases where a driver could have 6 different employers in 10 years, and thus 6 different pension pots.

The contractors try to squeeze wages .e.g. a cut of £9,000 when a contract is renewed – or so the Union says.

More worrying is the accusation that the hauliers are pressing for faster turn-round and more deliveries, which bearing in mind what the tankers are carrying is a cause for public concern.

And there is general  dissatisfaction with overall health and safety standards; the big storage depot explosion a few years ago was attributed to the proliferation of contractors so that no-one was really in charge.

All these issues would seem to be negotiable, but I suspect that part of the problem is that the Union boss wants to put a bit of stick about.

EAW: boring but important!

My previous warnings about the pernicious European Arrest Warrant have been greeted largely with yawns. But the abuse of the EWA could affect any of us.

Here’s yet another.

‘A single mother detained under a European arrest warrant (EAW) fears she will have to hand her young child to local authority care if she loses her battle against extradition to Poland.

The case of Natalia Gorczowska, 23, wanted in her native country for failing to complete a suspended sentence for a minor drugs offence, is being cited as an example of the conveyor belt-style of justice enforced by the EAW system.

British courts, which do not assess the substance or seriousness of allegations, have agreed to her removal. But the order has been stayed temporarily by a last-minute appeal to the European court of human rights (ECHR).

Her case has emerged at a time of mounting political criticism of the UK's extradition arrangements with the EU and US. The government is due to respond shortly to a review of procedures produced last year by Sir Scott Baker.

Gorczowska, who now lives in Norfolk, was originally convicted in December 2006 for possession of 4g of amphetamine, for which she was given a 10-month suspended sentence.

The conditions of her sentence were that she abstain from drugs and find employment. She left Poland to find work before her suspended sentence had expired because her father bought her a flight ticket to Britain. She is no longer taking drugs, the courts have been told, and is employed in the UK.

Her case has been taken up by Fair Trials International, which is campaigning to reform the use of EAWs, warning that they are often served disproportionately for minor offences.

Poland, where prosecutors exercise no discretion over whether to pursue individuals, issues more than any other EU state. In 2009/10 it sent the UK 2,403 EAWs; the next largest was Germany, which issued the UK with 235 arrest warrants.

Extradition requests have been sent out from Warsaw for minor offenders such as individuals going overdrawn on bank accounts, piglet thieves and cake snatchers. The Home Office has asked Poland to change its procedures.

"Extradition should be reserved for the most serious cases," said Jago Russell, chief executive of Fair Trials International, "but under the EU's fast-track system, thousands of people are now being extradited every year often for the most petty crimes’.

10 good reasons why Dave must go.

1.   At the last general election the Tories were shooting at an open goal. The UK had the worst administration since Lord North; it was not just disliked. It was loathed. There should have been a Tory landslide, but Dave didn’t even get a majority. The only possible reason must have been the leadership. People were looking for a firm hand. And what did they get? Wet Dave! I predict that the Labour Party at the next election will be led by Yvette Cooper with Balls as Shadow Chancellor. They will make a formidable couple. Dave will lose. He must go soon so that the Tories can get a hard man in position well before the Election. David Davies would fit the specs and will not be contaminated by association with the awful coalition.

2.   He brought in cuts to essential services and simultaneously increased foreign aid, not just a bit but a whacking 37%. Why? A sop to the Libs? Completely inexplicable, which is probably why he has never bothered to explain it.

3.   His stunt to intervene in the pricing of alcohol is typical Socialist dogma and a piece of nanny-statism. It won’t affect consumption in the 29 bars and restaurants in the Palace of Westminster.  And where did the information about an increase in liver disease come from? What is the evidence that this was caused by excessive drinking? By what percentage has it increased? What are the numbers? What are the regional differences? Here is Dominic Lawson in the Sunday Times: ‘The number of units of alcohol consumed each week by the average British adult is down by about 20% over the past five years. The number of those exceeding the recommended amount is down by about a quarter over the same period. The number of those at the extreme end has dropped by a third over the past five years; crimes of violence connected with the consumption of alcohol have dropped by about a quarter in the same period’. Tony Blair was always trailing these daft ideas, and Dave said he was the heir to Blair!

4.   He could have slashed civil service numbers simply by a recruitment freeze, especially in the Ministry of Defence which had more civvies than the armed forces have uniforms even before the cuts. He could have cut back salaries to decent levels and got rid of ‘bonuses’ that raise top salaries to obscene levels.

5.   We expect Tories to support our armed forces against the hostility of lefties. Instead they have made the UK more defenceless than at any time in history including the ‘disarmament’ 30’s. Dave’s cuts amount almost to sabotage, especially in the middle of a particularly nasty war.

6.   And he could have got us out of Afghanistan about 2 years and numbers of unnecessary casualties ago.

7.   When Dave fired Lt. Col Patrick Mercer as shadow Defence Secretary for saying that skiving black soldiers might be inclined to  play the race card, it was obvious that Dave had more concern for his standing amongst the Notting Hill chatterati than the defence of the realm, and he established himself as irredeemably PC.

8.   A Tory who is not a libertarian is not a Tory. Dave has not done one single thing to roll back the oppressive legislation of the Blair years that undermine our freedoms and criminalise us all. At a stroke of a pen he could rid us of the dreaded European Arrest Warrant by exercising our opt-out. And he could have fixed it with his new-found buddy Obama so that the extradition treaty (that only applies one way and which was agreed as an anti-terrorist measure but has not been used for this once) would be scrapped. He could remind O that not one single IRA terrorist was extradited from the US, and we are fed up with being America’s satrap.

9.   He promised to make a bonfire of quangos, executive agencies and other drones. What is the record? They seem to be still with us. Instead of abolishing the ludicrous Borders Agency (even the name is daft; we are an island so we don’t have any borders) in the wake of the recent scandal, we now have two. Immigration should be back in the Home Office where the Home Secretary can be held responsible.

10.               He could have come up with a sensible immigration policy that, for example, would not admit any asylum seeker who had already passed through another safe country en route to UK, and which would have required that work permits could only be applied for from outside the UK, as is the case in many countries. He could have ridden roughshod over ECHR rulings that prevent the deportation of criminals, as the French would. And he could have opted out of the ECJ jurisdiction (whatever happened to the promised scrapping of the Human Rights Act?).

Falklands: action replay, anyone?

Coming up is the 30^th anniversary of the Falklands campaign. The Argy Presidente is obviously in trouble at home which is why she is doing a bit of sabre rattling. It will come to nothing. Instead of a company of Royal Marines as garrison there are now 2 battalions plus fighter aircraft, a nuclear-powered sub and the very latest frigate – enough to see off anything that the Argies could field. And Wills, of course!

The fact that commercial oil deposits have now been confirmed makes it pretty certain that the whole question of sovereignty is off the table for all time.

Maggie’s gift was not the freeing of the Falklanders. It was the freeing of the Argentineans from a vile and murderous junta. They should be thanking us, not shouting the odds all over South America. Let’s hope that O does not show the same ambivalence as did the US at the time of the campaign. The ghastly Kirkpatrick woman was all for supporting the other side.

It’s a funny old world. Some years ago, I was flying some calibration exercises for new secondary surveillance radar being developed by Marconi. At their base I spotted a curiously shaped aerial. I was told that it was a radar-guided missile system for the specific task of knocking down exocets. The MOD wouldn’t buy it because exocets were French and the French were our allies!

One hero of the campaign was Commander Rick Jolly, the surgeon in charge of the casualty clearing station. Every casualty who came in went out alive. He treated the casualties according to the medical priority, not according to their nationality, so Argentineans were treated simply as wounded, not as enemy. The upshot was that he was decorated by both sides. I wonder if that was unique.

His account of the campaign is not without humour. He tells how the first casualty was a mincing red-top hack who came aboard the Canberra en route to the Falklands. He made a remark of a gay nature about the Paras – something about their ‘pretty pink headgear’ - , so they promptly picked him up and threw him through the lounge door. It was not open at the time and he was taken off the ship with a broken arm.

The Padre was wont to appear in the lounge on a Sunday and say ‘There will be a service of worship in one hour. You area all welcome to attend if you wish. Otherwise, you can f**k off!’

Probably apocryphal is the story of the Marine who thought that half his penis had been shot away in battle.  The Sergeant said ‘Well, sonny, you’ll have to leave the Corps now’. Why?’ said the lad. ‘Because you have to be a complete prick to serve in the Royal Marines!’ came  the reply.

Virgins, money & little George Osborne..

I suppose the event of the week was the Budget, although an even bigger farce was the spectacle of the French special forces hanging around that Toulouse apartment for a couple of days wondering what to do next. At last they have sent him off to meet his virgins. Sadly, they are all seventy-year old Ethiopian Jews.

Little George Osborne stimulated the economy by jacking up the tax on ciggies, booze and petrol. That should do the trick. Tobacco accounts for about £10 bn in tax revenue. It is estimated that £2.5 bn is lost to contraband. Smuggling fags should get easier when plain packets are introduced as they will not have to bother with counterfeiting expensive packaging. So we can look forward to a bull-market in the cross-Channel trade from Ostend.

No political fall-out, of course, since smoking is now almost the exclusive preserve of the lower orders.

He reduced the top rate of tax sufficient to cause a political row but not enough to do any good. Instead he should have introduced a ‘sports’ tax to clobber people who earn millions for kicking a round ball for 90 minutes once a week, or racing drivers who earn even more by taking part in what is now an expensive computer game. 90% would seem a reasonable rate.

And he could have abolished child benefit altogether. Why must we pay other people to have kids?

Instead of clobbering pensioners he should have raised pensions by abolishing all the silly allowances that go with them, like free TV licences for the over-75s and winter fuel allowance, sacking all the drones who administer them and adding the whole pot to the basic pension.

As for alcohol, here is a press report:

‘Dr Sarah Wollaston MP has called for a minimum price for alcohol to reduce binge drinking during a Parliamentary debate’.

And another thing. The EU budget contribution by UK will rise by £1.8 bn over the next couple of years.

‘It’s the same the whole world over;

It’s the poor wot gits the blame.

It’s the rich wot gits the gravy.

Ain’t it all a blooming shame!’

Obama & Assad: last of the big spenders?

I just saw a video interview between a senior American anchor woman, Barbara Waters, and President Bashar al-Assad. Barbara asked hardball questions and Assad gave convincing answers.

Asked upon her return home how she accounted for Assad's aggressive treatment of Syrian protesters, she replied that he was in a state of disconnect. He failed to realize what he could do to ameliorate the situation and to empathize with the plight of the protesters. Assad further noted that the situation is Syria is complex. With that understatement he stated flatly that his government has no policy of murder and torture against Syrian people. His explanation for these practices was to blame individual acts on the part of other citizens and the police.

I am not very sympathetic with the disconnect theory of Assad's actions. Yet, I stand willing to support some stronger form of action to mitigate relations between him and his detractors. It is time we consider the numbers of killed and wounded should the free world decide to intervene and after doing so, give Assad time to sort out the problem.

His English was a pleasure to hear, but I guess that is understandable after his having studied in the UK and being married to a woman who was born there. And what a looker she is. Asma al-Assad is a headstrong woman who recently claimed the title of the real Dictator of Syria. She also has expensive shopping habits with a particular taste to make purchases on-line. Smart girl.

Less smart are the Obamas who hold expensive dinner parties, shop in person and take holidays to dangerous places. To wit, one of the O girls is spending her school spring break holiday in Mexico under the protection of a score of Secret Service minders. It is unwise and arrogant of O to agree to his daughter's yen for partying in Mexico after his very own State Department issued travel advisories that Americans should not holiday there.

The family's many extravagancies lend strong credence to the proposition that O is thumbing his nose at those Americans who are unemployed or cannot otherwise afford a holiday or a dinner party or an evening at the theatre in New York. A bit of temperance would go a long way in warming Barack and family to disenchanted followers.

The nouveau riche and  bourgeois aspect of his behavior in the White House smacks of new money and no class. He needs some credible advisors whose opinions he respects and is prepared to follow.

A dob in the eye for Johnny Frog..

The wretched European Arrest Warrant has just had a big set-back for the French.

It happened thus.

In 1996, a French woman was murdered in Ireland.

The Gardai arrested one Ian Bailey, an English journalist, but the Irish DPP decided that there was not a shred of evidence against him.

Last year, the French authorities issued an EWA against Bailey even though no crime had been committed in the French jurisdiction and despite the fact that no charge was brought. Astonishingly, a lower court granted the EWA. Mr Bailey not unnaturally appealed.

The Irish Supreme Court has now ruled in Mr Bailey’s favour; here is the report of the judgment:

All five judges upheld Mr Bailey's argument that his extradition should be refused on the ground there is no actual intention by the French authorities to "try" him at this stage, as required by the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 which implemented the European Framework Decision on Extradition.

The Chief Justice, Ms Justice Susan Denham, said it was clear from the facts of the case, including a document from the French prosecuting authorities which was only provided to the court in January during the appeal hearing, that while a decision had been made in France equivalent to charging Mr Bailey, that did not incorporate a decision to "try" him for murder.

Four of the judges also upheld Mr Bailey's argument that Section 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 prohibits surrender because the alleged offence was committed outside French territory and Irish law does not allow prosecution for the same offence when committed outside its territory by a non-Irish citizen.

Not much doubt about that, then.

There are serious allegations that Mr Bailey was ‘fitted-up’ by the Gardai, and he is suing. This will run and run!

Scarcely had I written this when up pops another scandalous case.

The Portuguese have served an EWA on one Graham Mitchell for murder 16 years ago.

Two things are wrong.

No murder was ever committed.

And Mr Mitchell was acquitted of the real offence, assault on a German tourist, after spending a year on remand.

I was under the impression that an EWA could not be served when the offence had already been tried; this is what allowed an Afro-German doctor to escape a manslaughter charge in the UK when he overdosed a patient on his first shift and the scarpered back to Germany, where he was fined!

Perhaps they make it up as they go along.

Damn it, I've missed another gravy train....

In the big world outside it is now clear that the loonies have taken over the nuthouse.

All kinds of big-shots, from the Arch of Canterbury to the Mayor of London have got involved in a totally daft debate about whether a BA woman can wear a crucifix around her neck.

The issue is very simple. Where a uniform is provided and there is a ‘no personal adornment’ condition that is the end of the story.  Otherwise BA is out of order. End of debate. But, of course, the unspoken issue is that this is seen as discrimination against a Christian that would not be applied to a Muslim.

Then we have the Gestapo dawn raid to arrest the former editor of the News of the World and her husband over the phone-tapping scandal, when the Old Bill could have done this at a civilised hour. They could have saved themselves the trouble and simply asked the pair to come down to the local nick. But that wouldn’t have got the media coverage, would it! The Met needs all the good publicity it can get.

Just to keep us worried the medical profession is now saying that eating red meat, bacon and sausages can cause heart problems and the dental profession saying that the medical profession’s recommendation that we eat 5 portions of fruit and veg a day will make our teeth fall out.

We have had the toe-curling spectacle of the Cameron/Obama love-in and more bollox about the ‘special relationship’, with little George Osborne tagging along when he should have been back in the Treasury cooking the books.

Special relationship? The only US/UK special relationship that I can think of was between Ike and Kate Summersby.

Then there’s an unknown Congolese who had a heart attack getting day after day of headline TV and newspaper coverage. Why? Because he plays football. Meanwhile, in Europe the result of the EU ban on hen batteries is that there is now a shortage of eggs and the price has gone up by 30%. Not that this would worry the Eurocrats. They have just had a ruling from the ECJ that their big pay-rise is protected by law; this includes the pay of the ECJ judges!

And the ‘European External Action Service’, prop. ‘Lady’ Ashton, is growing apace. It now has an annual budget not unadjacent to £6 bn and 137 Embassies. It will have 46 diplomats in Barbados, 53 in Madagascar, and 39 in Mauritius. Damn and blast it; another gravy train that I missed!

Truly those whom the gods wish to destroy.....

George Clooney, Bobby Bales & the Right Hand of God.....

We are undergoing our annual 'March Madness' season in which competing university basketball teams vie for top honors. This was the theme that took O and Dave to Ohio to watch a game. To be sure, the spotlight was on them; forget the players. Oddly, Matt, the Telegraph's cartoonist, had the pair dressed in American Football gear playing in front of the White House. I found the connection a bit remote  given this is the basketball season.

One hot item here is why Master Sergeant Bobby Bales snapped. Nobody seems to be able to provide an answer noting that he was a decent lad with strong Army loyalties and eager to win the hearts and minds of the enemy. He did have an anger management issue earlier in life that almost led to incarceration. Supporters also cite his three tours in Iraq followed by a fourth in Afghanistan which he reportedly did not want. Instead, observers say, he hoped for a stateside position and an upgrade in rank, which he did not get. Clearly, he went off the deep end, but even that story is vague and currently leaves many how and why type questions unanswered. It should all come out soon enough.

We may have another bungling, know-it-all celebrity like Bono on our hands. Now, George Clooney feels compelled to lend his international development experience to the people of South Sudan. He has even testified before Congress, gotten himself arrested in Washington for illegally protesting and has grabbed the headlines for the past few days. I cannot help but think why the many no-name citizens and government observers dealing with the Sudan never got their hour upon the stage.

The issue is fairly clear, or at least one reporter thinks so. Russia is buying oil from Sudan. This oil comes from South Sudan and is piped to the Sudan for refining and export. Payments to South Sudan for their crude have not been forthcoming from the Sudan, so the southerners cut off the supply. This ticked off the Sudanese and pissed off the Russians. So, Sudan restarted military actions against South Sudan citizens. Proof of this was arranged by Clooney who convinced people in the satellite imaging business to focus on South Sudan for a spell. Clooney figured correctly that if a satellite can focus on his house in Moviestar land, they surely could focus on villages in Africa. They could, they did and for free. Hence, snaps of Sudanese planes dropping bombs on civilians complete with the explosions. My question remains why does it take a film star to get this type of proof while our political and military leaders sit idly by. Is it possible our elected and appointed leaders have this proof, but are not informing the public?

For what its worth, Mitt Romney won the primary in Puerto Rico with extreme prejudice. It is probably fair to say that Mitt did not really win, but rather Rick Santorum lost big time. He, in his inimitable puritanical fashion, preached to the residents of Puerto Rico that they should make English their official language (now it is Spanish and English). If the Puerto Ricans made this change, Rick could then support their bid for statehood. The Island has been a Territory of the US for years and the people get the best of all worlds under that status. They are protected by the US military, they carry US passports and get federal assistance on a regular basis. Yet, they are exonerated from paying personal income tax to the Federal Government. Moreover, statehood is an emotional issue with the majority of people having voted to remain a Territory of the US. Thus, Santorums dictate was not only ill-conceived, it fell on deaf ears. Additionally, his faux pas gave Romney a larger percentage of the public vote in Puerto Rico than in any other state so far. In the process, Mitt picked up Puerto Rico's full complement of 20 electoral votes.

After leaving Puerto Rico, Santorum visited Louisiana to campaign for a forthcoming primary there and to visit some old churches. During one of his public events, he confessed about himself, "One of the great blessings I've had in every political campaign is people underestimate me, people underestimate what God can do." I am not sure how this went down with the Catholic majority in Louisiana, but it does illustrate my earlier point that Rick believes he sits at the right hand of God. Danger, danger, danger.

So farewell, then, Newt...

Nobody is getting the calls right on the primary elections. Santorum's success in Mississippi and Alabama was supposed to have gone to Gingrich and Romney respectively.

Newt is pretty much out of the picture now, although he will be the last to admit it. His ego will not permit otherwise. Pity, strutting around losing state after state like the king with no clothes. The baggage he carries is far to heavy and he cannot shed it other than to ask forgiveness for his trespasses.

I should thing Newt would be better off praying to Rick Santorum who behaves as if he is holier than God. I doubt, however, that Rick would show any mercy. He, Rick, is adamant that Newt dutifully bow out of the race and thereby cede the vast majority of votes  Newt would get to Santorum. Odd, this also happens to be Newt's conviction. By splitting the ultra right wing conservative vote between them, Mitt benefits considerably.

The irony of all this is that the entire primary election is largely meaningless. For example, many states that caucus instead of having a public vote, retain the right to assign their state delegate votes to whomever they want and not necessarily the winning candidate. All three of the key players (Ron Paul is campaigning on behalf of his own obscure agenda) are desperately trying to win the conservative vote.

The only deep, dyed in the wool conservative among them is Rick Santorum. As God, he would be conservative, wouldn't he? The problem is, when it comes time for the national election against Obama, an extreme right wing conservative will not carry the vote. Not even close. So, what's the point?

The only candidate who can hope to defeat Obama is Romney. Mitt looks presidential, has a clean vice record, knows his economics and is a Washington outsider. The latter is considered an asset in this election as anyone tainted with the Washington brush is viewed as suspect, as in conspiratorial, dishonest, corrupt, greedy, phoney, and inclined to be liberal with the truth.

I personally doubt whether Mitt can defeat Obama given his tendency to put the public to sleep. There remains the Mormon factor which has only slightly surfaced, but could be used against Mitt should his opponents decide it is their last and only chance to win.

Still in all, he has to win the nomination first and with less than half the 1,100 and odd delegate votes needed, some believe no candidate will acquire enough votes. If not, then we will have a brokered election in which the powers that be in the Republican party meet to decide where to place their influence. The mechanics of a brokered convention lend themselves to all sorts of shenanigans, wheeling and dealing.

It is likely, however, Mitt would still be the winner as everyone knows, except Newt and God, that he has the best chance against Obama.

LONDON TIMES - QUOTE OF THE WEEK‏

‏
Interesting point of view Affirmative Action: "South Africa is the only country in the world where affirmative action is in the favour of the majority who has complete political control. The fact that the political majority requires affirmative action to protect them against a 9% minority group is testament to a complete failure on their part to build their own wealth making structures, such that their only solution is to take it from others."

Finally, a word recently coined to describe South Africa's current political situation. Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

The Olympic Games: hooray for bread 'n circuses!

And now for the Olympic Games.

London will be crowded with tourists who have come to watch chemically-induced runners, jumpers and throwers strutting their stuff. That should do the economy a power of good, although not nearly enough to recoup even a smidgen of the astronomical cost of this circus.

It should all be great fun; here are some of the security measures that will be put in place:

‘Scanners, biometric ID cards, number-plate and facial-recognition CCTV systems, disease tracking systems, new police control centres and checkpoints have all been planned as part of the Olympic security strategy. In addition, Londoners and Olympic tourists can look forward to seeing an aircraft carrier that will permanently be docked on the Thames; surface-to-air missile systems will scan the skies; unmanned drones that will hover above the stadiums; RAF Typhoon Eurofighters; a thousand armed US diplomatic and FBI agents; and 55 dog teams will patrol an Olympic zone partitioned off from the wider city by an 11-mile, 5,000-volt electronic fence’.

Of course, they will all be removed afterwards. Won’t they?

We will have taxi-drivers being told that they will have to make expensive diversions because their route has been closed to all but the IOC committee. We will have owners of suburban b&bs rubbing their hands because the IOC has booked 45,000 room nights at the best inner-city hotels, and we will have Romanian truck drivers banned from the motorway to the south coast because it is a Zil-lane for the sailing events.

It will be perfectly legitimate  to harass Asian corner-shopkeepers for displaying Pepsi adverts if the sponsoring soft drink is Coke, and to order the Landlord of the ‘Dog and Pessary’ to take down his pub sign because it advertises beer that is not included in the approved list of suppliers to the ‘Games’.

We will be able to observe Bonker Boris slavering over the minimalist running kit of the female competitors, and, as our greatest living classicist, we might expect his column in the DT to extol the virtues of the original Grecian Olympics when competitors performed in the nude.

'Old gits....get off the road!'

‘If you have half a mind to go into politics………..that’s all you need!

Our political masters are now chuntering on about whether to allow anyone over 70 to drive, and if so, under what conditions. They refer as evidence of the need for control to one or two well-publicized cases of gaga grandpas driving the wrong way down the motorway, although possibly less frequently than continental truck drivers.

Of course, any proposal to apply the principle to other categories would be met with howls of ‘discrimination’. Where should we start?

Well, anyone convicted of a drugs offence might be tested at frequent intervals before being allowed on the road. Some years ago one police force carried out sample testing of motorists and found that about 6% had drunk alcohol in the previous 24 hours but over 30% had taken drugs.

Then there’s the under-25s. Statistically they cause nearly 4 times as many accidents as experienced drivers. We have a second category after passing the driving test. The rookie has to carry an ‘R’ in place of an ‘L’ for one year. There are specific prohibitions, like not being allowed to use a motorway and being restricted to 50 m.p.h. Having noted the quality of their driving, I must conclude that the ‘R’ stands for ‘reckless’.

Perhaps it is only a matter of time before everyone has to renew the driving license annually at a large fee plus a medical examination at the applicant’s expense.

The late, great Dave Allen had a view. ‘5% of all traffic accidents are caused by drunken drivers’, he said, ‘So 95% are caused by sober drivers. Let’s get the sober drivers off the road and make driving safe for all us drunks!’

Is 'FairTrade' fair trade?

Fairtrade Fortnight will be here shortly.

Despite its ‘do-good’ presentation it is really a marketing exercise. Fair trade is anything but. It offers only a very small number of farmers a higher, fixed price for their goods. Simple economics will tell you that these higher prices come at the expense of the great majority of farmers who are left even worse off because the Fairtrade subsidy unbalances normal market forces.

It stands to reason that if you subsidise an internationally traded commodity to some producers but not all, the subsidised growers will be able to undercut the non-subsidised.  This in turn encourages over-production and is a disincentive to agricultural improvement. Many of the farmers helped by Fairtrade are in Mexico, Argentina, and other relatively developed countries, and not in places like Ethiopia.

We recently bought oranges that we later discovered were marked ‘Fairtrade’. They came from Argentina which has a higher GDP PPP than Poland, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, Greece and Portugal in the top 40 richest nations. And it is blindingly obvious that oranges in European supermarkets don’t come from poor peasant farmers. They come from large commercial estates.

There was a woman on TV recently waffling on about supporting Fairtrade tea growing in Malawi. Eh? The tea estates there are owned either by wealthy British or Italian planters who have been there for nearly 100 years, or the big international tea producers.

The Co-op makes a big thing about its Fairtrade wine. This comes from wealthy wine-producers in Chile and South Africa.

It doesn’t help economic development. It keeps the poor in their place, sustaining uncompetitive farmers on their land and holding back diversification, mechanization, and moves up the value chain. Just 10% of the premium consumers pay for Fairtrade actually goes to the producer. Retailers pocket the rest.

Fairtrade arose from the coffee crisis of the 1990s. This was not a free market failure. Governments tried to rig the market through the International Coffee Agreement and subsidized over-plantation with the encouragement of well-meaning but misguided aid agencies. The crash in prices was the inevitable result of this government intervention, but coffee prices have largely recovered since then.

However, it probably helps addle-pated numpties feel that they have done their bit to save mankind without actually exerting themselves. For ourselves, we refuse to buy anything marked ‘Fairtrade’, ‘organic’ or ‘GM free’.

If we really want ‘fair trade’ to help developing countries we should try getting rid of the CAP and US farm subsidies and EU tariffs on imported food.

For example, the EU pays massive subsidies to sugar producers. Sugar is a major product of poor countries like Malawi and Jamaica. QED.

Dave's great achievements.

As it is nearly 2 years down the track since the last Election, I have been pondering on what this absurd coalition has achieved and what Dave has done to earn his wages.

First, the sheer size of the public sector. It is difficult to track down reductions in staffing levels, as the latest published figures appear to be for the 1^st quarter of 2011. What is clear is that the pay-bill has actually gone up as numbers have declined, and there is an increasing differential between pay in the public and private sectors. A bit of ‘make hay’ going on here? And the public sector is still 23% of the work-force.

But Dave has pulled the rug out from under REMPLOY, putting 1700 disabled workers on the scrap heap. I suppose every little helps.

The armed forces have had their numbers cut by 10% so far, with more to come. Who needs them? It’s not all bad. There has not been a single redundancy in the MoD and its agencies, so they can continue to out-number uniforms even more.

And on the subject of defence, for the first time since Henry VIII we don’t have a single man-of-war in British waters. So it should not be difficult to put a rubber duck-based RPG into one of our coastal oil refineries. Al Qaeda, come on down! We are building a couple of aircraft carriers that will not have any planes and no AWACs cover, so they should be cheap to run. And we have sold all the  Harriers to the Yanks and broken up newly-refurbished Nimrods, so no future Government will be able to put the clock back, something that Francis ‘Flipper’ Maude hates.

Dave is sticking to his guns – or, rather, other peoples’ guns, in Afghanistan. We don’t know why we are there; certainly not to frag Al Qaeda who have long since gone. It would save a huge amount of taxpayers’ money, not to mention lives,  if we simply pulled out forthwith, but Dave must know what he’s doing. Mustn’t he?

We can all feel terribly virtuous at increasing our aid to our Commonwealth cousins, and a lot of others, by 37% so that India and Pakistan can afford their membership of the Nuclear Club, and enable President Bungrafta of Wherawi to buy an executive jet for himself and lots of Mercs for his mates (and expel the British High Commissioner for raising an eyebrow).

At least Dave is concentrating on priorities, instead of messing about with trivia such as the economy, immigration and Laura Norder.

For example, there is the vital topic of gay marriage. Then there’s reform of the House of Lords, and fixed parliaments so that we will have coalitions forever.

What of civil liberties and the rolling back of the 3500 new criminal offences introduced by Blair to make criminals of us all?

There is some good news here; you will no longer need a licence to stage a Punch & Judy show.

Compensate Jamaica for slavery?

I see that the Jamaican Prime Minister has chosen the visit of Prince Harry to wax eloquent about Britain compensating Jamaica for the slave trade.

Perhaps she overlooks the fact that it was Britain that actually abolished the slave trade in 1807 (followed by the US in 1808). This was not just the British trade. It was the whole lot. Because the Royal Navy really did rule the seas it could enforce the ban on ships of any flag, and did. Slaving was equated with piracy and carried the death penalty. For 50 years the RN operated vigorously against slavers.

It banned slavery altogether in 1833.

But this trend had started many years earlier with the historic judgment of Lord Mansfield in 1772 which ruled that as soon as a slave set foot in Britain he became free.

And if we are to accept the principle of compensation for slavery nearly 200 years ago, how about the 1 million-plus Europeans taken as slaves by the Barbary pirates? Or the estimated 100 million taken in the eastern Africa trade over more than 1000 years, centred on Zanzibar?

Ought we to not be seeking relief for the thousands of slaves in Africa today (200,000 in Sudan alone)?

So, Sista P, look where your train of logic takes you.

And another thing.

Were it not for slavery, where would you be today? Begging in Sierra Leone without your hands? Sowing mealies with just a hoe? You might care to read ‘Africa: dispatches from a Fragile Continent’ by Blaine Harden. He is an Afro-American and former bureau chief for the Washington Post in sub-Saharan Africa. Seeing the state of Africa, he is thankful that his forbears were taken as slaves.

Something to ponder, Sista P.