Norman Tebbit has added his voice to the split within the Tory Party. It's not Europe that has split the Tories this time but same-sex marriage. Norman feels that a discussion of the possible effects on our royal line of succession is enough to carry the argument and cause the gay marriage bill to fail.
His first problem is that he is concerned about what might happen "if we have a queen who is a lesbian". However, the Royal Family have enough problems already with their heterosexual partnerships and as far as threats to sovereignty are concerned I think a lesbian queen comes far down the list.
Norman also has a problem because he thinks the bill relates to incest. "It would lift my worries about inheritance tax because maybe I'd be
allowed to marry my son. Why not? Why shouldn't a mother marry her
daughter? Why shouldn't two elderly sisters living together marry each
other?" I'm not sure about Norman's logic but I haven't heard anyone supporting incest.
Change the world
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Dambusters: A smart raid?
If you had to set the rules by which you conduct a war then what would you include? You come across these rules in war films when an English POW is asked for information and with their stiff upper lip give only their name, rank and number. Should soldiers be killing civilians? Well the answer should be a no. Should attacks be carried out that harm civilians? Well it should be a no again but 'collateral damage' means that sometimes these things happen, they can't be helped and sometimes they are a necessary part of war.
There is a great emphasis on targeting of military targets but if civilians are killed or harmed in any way then it may be argued that this is what you have to put up with. However I am now letting you make up the rules. Have you decided that it is alright to harm civilians if they are not the main target? Would you allow civilians to become the main target?
Now think of the Dambusters raid on the dams in the Ruhr Valley in 1943. The target was water. You could argue that military operations need water so civilians were not the main target but I don't think you would get very far as everyone needs water and that means the dams were not military targets. You could argue that the raid brought a quicker end to the war so must be a good thing. You could argue that the raid was a much needed propaganda boost for the allies. You have now torn up your rule book.
Yesterday the BBC published an article by Dan Snow in which he wrote about the bouncing bombs as 'the ancestor of today's "smart bombs" ' but smart bombs are used to limit collateral damage. The Dambusters were not aiming to minimise collateral damage but to cause it. Hundreds of civilians and POWs were killed by the flood waters. 25 bridges were destroyed. The power supply and agriculture were affected. Dan was referring to the bouncing bombs themselves when he called them 'smart' but the real destructive weapon was the water and this was certainly not selective in its target.
Dan writes that 'the skill and bravery of the pilots who flew at night, at 100ft (30m) or less over enemy territory is breathtaking'. Yes it was, but how would we view the skill and bravery of the Luftwaffe pilots if our dams had been breached? In 1977 the Geneva Conventions were amended to prohibit attacks on dams "if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population". This amendment was directly inspired by the Dambusters raid. We can't apply 1977 laws to 1943, but back then, even more so than today, I think the belief was widespread that targeting civilians was what the "bad guys" did, and soldiers should only be fighting other soldiers. So, was the Dambusters raid a 'smart' raid? What do you think?
Change the world
There is a great emphasis on targeting of military targets but if civilians are killed or harmed in any way then it may be argued that this is what you have to put up with. However I am now letting you make up the rules. Have you decided that it is alright to harm civilians if they are not the main target? Would you allow civilians to become the main target?
Now think of the Dambusters raid on the dams in the Ruhr Valley in 1943. The target was water. You could argue that military operations need water so civilians were not the main target but I don't think you would get very far as everyone needs water and that means the dams were not military targets. You could argue that the raid brought a quicker end to the war so must be a good thing. You could argue that the raid was a much needed propaganda boost for the allies. You have now torn up your rule book.
Yesterday the BBC published an article by Dan Snow in which he wrote about the bouncing bombs as 'the ancestor of today's "smart bombs" ' but smart bombs are used to limit collateral damage. The Dambusters were not aiming to minimise collateral damage but to cause it. Hundreds of civilians and POWs were killed by the flood waters. 25 bridges were destroyed. The power supply and agriculture were affected. Dan was referring to the bouncing bombs themselves when he called them 'smart' but the real destructive weapon was the water and this was certainly not selective in its target.
Dan writes that 'the skill and bravery of the pilots who flew at night, at 100ft (30m) or less over enemy territory is breathtaking'. Yes it was, but how would we view the skill and bravery of the Luftwaffe pilots if our dams had been breached? In 1977 the Geneva Conventions were amended to prohibit attacks on dams "if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population". This amendment was directly inspired by the Dambusters raid. We can't apply 1977 laws to 1943, but back then, even more so than today, I think the belief was widespread that targeting civilians was what the "bad guys" did, and soldiers should only be fighting other soldiers. So, was the Dambusters raid a 'smart' raid? What do you think?
Change the world
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
The camera can lie
Some say that history is written by the victors and there is a strong case that this is correct. There is an even stronger case that history is written by the historians and among the historians I include those who take photographs, not just those who do the reporting.
When the miners were on strike in the 1970s we saw clashes between the police and those on strike and in this case history may well have been written by those with a camera. Well I was recently talking to a retired police officer who told me that he was part of those clashes but they were artificially created for the cameras. In fact the police and strikers were getting on well, sharing food and drink and talking in a friendly way, but when cameras turned up then a clash was stage-managed. There is also a famous photograph of a spontaneous kiss in front of the Town Hall in Paris by Robert Doisneau. It wasn't spontaneous at all. It was posed. The camera can lie.
Yesterday I was talking to a Liberal Democrat member who was at the election count on May 3rd. He told me that he saw a photographer who was waiting at a distance to take his photo and was disappointed that his photo had been taken in the moment that he scratched his head. He had been aware of the photographer and wanted his photo taken to be a good one. The photograph highlighted concern. If the photographer waited long enough he may have been able to take a photo of a yawn or a smile. The photo could have been a reflection of any emotion that you care to mention and then history is written in the way that the photographer wishes. At least when a photographer asks for the photo then the person knows what is happening.
Change the world
When the miners were on strike in the 1970s we saw clashes between the police and those on strike and in this case history may well have been written by those with a camera. Well I was recently talking to a retired police officer who told me that he was part of those clashes but they were artificially created for the cameras. In fact the police and strikers were getting on well, sharing food and drink and talking in a friendly way, but when cameras turned up then a clash was stage-managed. There is also a famous photograph of a spontaneous kiss in front of the Town Hall in Paris by Robert Doisneau. It wasn't spontaneous at all. It was posed. The camera can lie.
Yesterday I was talking to a Liberal Democrat member who was at the election count on May 3rd. He told me that he saw a photographer who was waiting at a distance to take his photo and was disappointed that his photo had been taken in the moment that he scratched his head. He had been aware of the photographer and wanted his photo taken to be a good one. The photograph highlighted concern. If the photographer waited long enough he may have been able to take a photo of a yawn or a smile. The photo could have been a reflection of any emotion that you care to mention and then history is written in the way that the photographer wishes. At least when a photographer asks for the photo then the person knows what is happening.
Change the world
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
A Monument to Council Waste
I am still receiving replies from the council from the questions that were asked of me in the election campaign. Today I read about the council's policy on 20mph areas. It was interesting to read that the 'the current policy is not to include short cul-de-sacs due to the
difficulty of reaching a high speed on a short stretch of road' as I had asked specifically about two very narrow and very short cul-de-sacs. However in both these cases the council had overturned its own policy.
My favourite quote of the campaign was from one local resident who told me "I defy Sebastian Vettel to get up to 20mph". He is right. It can't be done.
I thanked the council officer for replying to my question and wrote 'It's a pity that this policy was overturned in these two cases as local residents will see the signs on a daily basis as a monument to council waste'.
Change the world
My favourite quote of the campaign was from one local resident who told me "I defy Sebastian Vettel to get up to 20mph". He is right. It can't be done.
I thanked the council officer for replying to my question and wrote 'It's a pity that this policy was overturned in these two cases as local residents will see the signs on a daily basis as a monument to council waste'.
Change the world
Cameron eats fruitcake
Much of the recent debate on an EU exit strikes at the heart
of the Ukip agenda and Lord Lawson has
just switched sides and wants to leave. Ukip are not just concerned with this exit although many may have voted for them on this issue alone. David
Cameron may well have decided that silence was the best policy following
his comment in November last year that Ukip were a bunch of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet
racists". This week he had to eat his words but really he shouldn’t
have attacked their politicians as inadvertently he was criticising the people who vote for the party. He should have criticised
policy.
I am concerned by UKIP’s policies in general. There must be
some policies that I agree with (and there are) because UKIP buys them off the
populist shelves. However I’ll give one example as to why this is not always a
good idea. The residents of California were asked about their priorities for
health care and they thought that reconstructive cosmetic surgery was more
important than hip replacements.
Taxation is another area that causes me concern. UKIP hasn’t
completely sorted out their tax proposals but they do want a flat rate which is
bound to help the rich. They do want a slightly higher tax threshold than that
which is proposed by the Liberal Democrats but if you want to help the rich
then a flat rate would do it. If you do help the rich then the poor get less. Moreover
the trouble with picking and choosing populist policies is that they are not
costed. I am always pleased to read at each election that the Liberal Democrat
manifesto is costed as well as verified independently.
Nigel Farage wants an “amicable divorce” from Europe. I am
sure that the divorce settlement would not be good for Britain. Why should the
rest of Europe allow it to be? We can’t compare ourselves with much richer nations
like Norway and a divorce would convince multinational companies to side with
the rest of Europe.
Ukip has attracted
a great deal of criticism from within its own party. In 1993 the first leader,
Alan Sked said that the party had become “extraordinarily right wing”. You can
Google his many criticisms. UKIP has
banned BNP members and describes itself as a non-racist party but why would it
need to explicitly make these claims unless it already attracted such people?
BNP members in Scotland broke away to join the British Freedom Party and they
were invited to join UKIP by Christopher Monckton, UKIP’s leader in Scotland. There
are phrases like “Multiculturalism has split our society” which appear in the
UKIP manifesto and this causes me great concern. UKIP’s “Pocket Guide to
Immigration” promised to “end support for multiculturalism and promote one,
common British culture”. I am sure that this moves us in a difficult and
dangerous direction.
UKIP has had more than its fair share of members with
extreme views but it is also worth taking a look at the friends that UKIP
keeps. It is part of the group called Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD).
This includes Italy’s Lega Nord and other far right parties. Nigel Farage has
even felt the need to suggest withdrawing from the EFD but hasn’t despite
further affirmations of extreme views, and one UKIP MEP was expelled for
refusing to take part in the EFD.
We need Europe for many reasons and when it comes to issues
like the environment and immigration there are huge
differences between Liberal Democrats and UKIP. However the Liberal Democrats
and UKIP both support voting reforms. It’s always nice to finish a blog on a
positive note, but I won't. If Nigel Farage is willing to do a pre-election deal with the Conservatives, as long as David Cameron is not leading them, then this shows contempt for the electorate. Ukip has just gained 25% of the vote and they have taken votes from Labour too. It now looks like they are saying they are just the same as anti-EU Tories. You don't treat voters like that.
Change the world
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
Local is Beautiful
It just doesn't make sense to produce anything that could be made in the rest of the world, and then transport it around the world. New Zealand may be a great place for lambs but how long does it take to get here and how much does it cost to transport it? I know that I have written about Schumacher's 'Small is Beautiful' before, but I want to go back to one point that he made. 'Modern industry seems to be inefficient to a degree that surpasses one's ordinary powers of imagination. Its inefficiency therefore remains unnoticed'.
Why should we get clothes from India when we can produce them here? The answer is also to be found in his book. 'The modern economy is propelled by a frenzy of greed and indulges in an orgy of envy, and these are not accidental features but the very causes of its expansionist success'. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about lamb or clothes or any other form of trade (and mainly Schumacher writes about energy) the principle is the same. Don't waste the world's resources and if you send things around the world then that's what you are doing.
Lord Lawson wants to leave the EU. "Too much of British business and industry feels... secure in the warm embrace of the European single market and is failing to recognise that today's great export opportunities lie in the developing world, particularly in Asia". So is there some great panacea that allows companies to trade with Asia in a much easier way if they were not members of the EU? In this case all EU countries would be searching for it, but there isn't and they aren't.
Change the world
Why should we get clothes from India when we can produce them here? The answer is also to be found in his book. 'The modern economy is propelled by a frenzy of greed and indulges in an orgy of envy, and these are not accidental features but the very causes of its expansionist success'. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about lamb or clothes or any other form of trade (and mainly Schumacher writes about energy) the principle is the same. Don't waste the world's resources and if you send things around the world then that's what you are doing.
Lord Lawson wants to leave the EU. "Too much of British business and industry feels... secure in the warm embrace of the European single market and is failing to recognise that today's great export opportunities lie in the developing world, particularly in Asia". So is there some great panacea that allows companies to trade with Asia in a much easier way if they were not members of the EU? In this case all EU countries would be searching for it, but there isn't and they aren't.
Change the world
Thursday, 2 May 2013
Does William Hague have nothing better to do?
I have waited till 10pm to publish this blog as the polls are now closed for the county council elections and I did not wish to give any publicity to the Tory effort that has gone into this election. However it is remarkable that William Hague has been phoning constituents in Morecambe South. At least that's what David Morris, my M.P. wrote in his tweet on the 1st May. I don't know if our foreign secretary and first secretary of state phoned one or two people in Morecambe South or whether he spent a few hours working on the phones trying to persuade Lancashire voters with his broad Yorkshire accent.
Regardless of the time that William spent helping out the Tories in Morecambe South, does he really have nothing better to do? Should he not be spending time sorting out Somalia or Syria or North Korea? He is currently, according to his twitter feed, hard at work on preparations for a conference on Somalia, and there is a "Huge amount at stake in #Somalia. Future of that country, stability of region and our own national security against terrorism". This is true, the conference on Somalia is hugely important, and William Hague clearly will have a big part to play in decisions that will profoundly affect its future. Still, he must have heard that Morecambe South has an excellent Liberal Democrat candidate and I can understand him putting world events to one side and concentrating on my area of Morecambe.
Change the world
Regardless of the time that William spent helping out the Tories in Morecambe South, does he really have nothing better to do? Should he not be spending time sorting out Somalia or Syria or North Korea? He is currently, according to his twitter feed, hard at work on preparations for a conference on Somalia, and there is a "Huge amount at stake in #Somalia. Future of that country, stability of region and our own national security against terrorism". This is true, the conference on Somalia is hugely important, and William Hague clearly will have a big part to play in decisions that will profoundly affect its future. Still, he must have heard that Morecambe South has an excellent Liberal Democrat candidate and I can understand him putting world events to one side and concentrating on my area of Morecambe.
Change the world
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
